OGBONNA -v- LAY [2013] WASC 266

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 266
Published:	31/07/2013
Case No:	SJA:1136/2012	Heard:	6 JUNE 2013
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	6/06/13
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CELESTINE IFEANYI CEEFYNE OGBONNA JADE ANDREW LAY
Catchwords:	Appeal Three grounds for appeal Obstructing public officer Power of police officer
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 9 Criminal Code (WA) s 1, s 24, s 172 Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002 (WA) reg 62(1), reg 62(2)
Case References:	Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 Haywood-Jackson v Mason-Walshaw [2012] WASC 107 Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 205 ALR 422 Semaan v Poidevin [2013] NSWSC 226

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : OGBONNA -v- LAY [2013] WASC 266 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 6 JUNE 2013 DELIVERED : 6 JUNE 2013 PUBLISHED : 31 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1136 of 2012 BETWEEN : CELESTINE IFEANYI CEEFYNE OGBONNA

Appellant

AND

JADE ANDREW LAY

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G CICCHINI

File No : PE 9797 of 2012

Catchwords:

Appeal - Three grounds for appeal - Obstructing public officer - Power of police officer

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 9

Criminal Code (WA) s 1, s 24, s 172
Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002 (WA) reg 62(1), reg 62(2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C Miocevich

Respondent : Mr J Newton-Palmer

Solicitors:

Appellant : C & G Miocevich Law Offices Pty Ltd

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427
Haywood-Jackson v Mason-Walshaw [2012] WASC 107
Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 205 ALR 422
Semaan v Poidevin [2013] NSWSC 226

KENNETH MARTIN J

(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously on 6 June 2013 and have subsequently been edited from the transcript.)

1 This is an appeal against a decision of his Honour Magistrate Cicchini of whose decision on 31 August 2012, which convicted the appellant, Mr Ogbonna, in respect of an offence of obstructing a public officer in the course of their duty.

2 The relevant provision of the Criminal Code, is:

172. Obstructing public officer

(1) In this section -

obstruct

includes to prevent, to hinder and to resist.

(2) A person who obstructs a public officer, or a person lawfully assisting a public officer, in the performance of the officer's functions is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of $18 000.

3 For the purposes of s 172(2), the term 'public officer' refers back to a definition in s 1 of the Criminal Code. This says the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ogbonna v Lay

Details

AGLC: OGBONNA -v- LAY [2013] WASC 266
Case: [2013] WASC 266
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ogbonna v Lay, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for obstructing a police officer in the performance of their duties. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the decision being handed down by Justice Jane Gordon. The appellant raised three grounds for appeal, challenging the conviction on the basis of procedural errors, the adequacy of the evidence, and the exercise of police power.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions concerning obstruction of a public officer. The appellant argued that the police officer had overstepped their authority, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary elements of the offence. The court had to determine whether the police officer's actions were reasonable and lawful in the circumstances, and whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Gordon thoroughly examined the evidence presented in the case, and considered the arguments advanced by both parties. The court found that the police officer's actions were reasonable and lawful, and that the prosecution had adequately established the elements of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the trial judge's findings and the conviction and sentence imposed. The court held that the appellant's arguments did not successfully challenge the correctness of the trial judge's decision, and that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.