Noormets v The State of Western Australia

Luke Edward Noormets (the appellant) appeals against his conviction on count 3 of an indictment. The jury convicted the appellant, after a trial in the District Court, of the offence of doing an act, with intent to harm, as a result of which bodily harm was caused to Jack Ryan Tonta, contrary to s 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA). The State alleged that the relevant act was the appellant dousing Mr Tonta's jeans with petrol and igniting the jeans. The State alleged that the relevant bodily harm was first and second degree burns to Mr Tonta's legs, especially behind his left knee. The appellant requires an extension of time within which to appeal. His appeal notice was filed on 17 June 2020, being 250 days out of time. The appellant relies upon two grounds of appeal. Ground 1 alleges that the jury's verdict in relation to count 3 is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Ground 2, as amended at the hearing of the appeal, alleges that there has been a miscarriage of justice because new evidence establishes that the appellant could not have committed the act necessary for a properly instructed jury to convict on count 3. The application for leave to appeal was referred to the hearing of the appeal. I would dismiss the application for an extension of time. It would be futile to grant an extension because neither of the grounds of appeal has been established. Leave to appeal on ground 1 should be refused. Although I would grant leave to appeal on ground 2, the ground has not been made out. The appeal must be dismissed. The appellant's evidence at trial was that he did not douse Mr Tonta's jeans in petrol and set them alight. The jury were entitled to reject the appellant's evidence. The jury were also entitled to accept Mr Tonta's evidence that the appellant applied petrol to his jeans; ignited vapour from the petrol; and the ignited vapour caused the first and second degree burns to Mr Tonta's legs. The jury's verdict of guilty on count 3 was not unreasonable. It was supported by evidence that the jury was entitled to accept and inferences that the jury was entitled to draw. The additional evidence sought to be adduced in the appeal, notably, Mr Munday's evidence, does not establish that the appellant is innocent of the offence charged in count 3 or raise such a doubt that this court should be satisfied that the appellant should not have been convicted on count 3. The appeal must be dismissed.