MSB v WA Police

Case [2024] WASC 286


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MSB -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 286

CORAM:   FORRESTER J

HEARD:   3 MAY 2024

DELIVERED          :   17 SEPTEMBER 2024

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1064 of 2023

BETWEEN:   MSB

Appellant

AND

WA POLICE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No:   SJA 1064 of 2023

Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   MAGISTRATE C CRAWFORD

File Number            :   PE 32888 of 2022


Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Single judge appeal - Appeal against conviction - Trespass - Whether evidence relied upon by prosecution was inadmissible - Whether lack of consent or licence proved - Whether magistrate erred in using alleged lie as consciousness of guilt - Whether magistrate erred in failing to consider s 22 and s 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) - Whether verdict unreasonable and unsupported by evidence - Whether substantial miscarriage of justice - Appeal against sentence - Whether sentence was excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Dividing Fences Act 1961 (WA)
Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on ground 1
Leave to appeal refused on all other grounds
Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In Person
Respondent : Mr C Payne

Solicitors:

Appellant : In Person
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office (WA)

Cases referred to in decision:

AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438

Barker v The Queen [1983] HCA 18; (1983) 153 CLR 338

Carr v The State of Western Australia [2007] HCA 47; (2007) 232 CLR 138

CD and EF v Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection and Family Support [2017] WASC 126

Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193

Evans v WA Police [2024] WASC 24

Holmes v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 26

Hunt v Russell [2019] WASC 284

Lance v Weston [2014] WASCA 62

LBC v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 201

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487

Martincic v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 134

Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100

Molina z Zaknich [2001] WASCA 337; (2001) 24 WAR 562

Morgan v Cramer [2019] WASC 68

NYL v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 41

Police v Slobodian [2008] SASC 69

Prichard v M 6:8 Legal Pty Ltd [2024] WASCA 4

Reynolds v Rayney [2023] WASCA 144

Roy v O'Neill [2020] HCA 45; (2020) 272 CLR 291

Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

Snook v Magistrate Trevor Darge [No 2] [2024] WASC 91

Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190

Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561

Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300

Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39; (2009) 253 ALR 560

WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97; (2015) 48 WAR 494

FORRESTER J:

  1. On 12 July…

Continue reading MSB v WA Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
MSB v WA Police [2024] WASC 286
Case
[2024] WASC 286
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MSB appealed against his conviction and sentence for trespass, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible, that there was no proof of lack of consent or licence, and that the magistrate erred in using an alleged lie as consciousness of guilt. WA Police opposed the appeal, arguing that the conviction and sentence were appropriate. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia.

The court considered whether the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was inadmissible, whether the lack of consent or licence was proved, whether the magistrate erred in using an alleged lie as consciousness of guilt, whether the magistrate erred in failing to consider sections 22 and 24 of the Criminal Code (WA), whether the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, and whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. The court also considered whether the sentence was excessive.

The court found that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was admissible and that there was proof of lack of consent or licence. The court held that the magistrate did not err in using an alleged lie as consciousness of guilt and that the magistrate did not err in failing to consider sections 22 and 24 of the Criminal Code (WA). The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence and that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. The court held that the sentence was not excessive. Therefore, the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. However, leave to appeal was granted on ground 5. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted on ground 5.

2. Leave to appeal is refused on all other grounds.

3. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

4. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

5. The appellant pay the respondent's costs to be taxed if not agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.