PALMER -v- LACCO [2013] WASC 236
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 236 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1024/2013 | 21 MAY 2013 | |
| Coram: | CORBOY J | 19/06/13 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed New trial ordered | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
ALLON MITCHELL LACCO
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE CAMPIONE
File No : PE 30758 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Stealing a motor vehicle - Appeal against finding that the respondent had no case to answer - Whether admissions made for the purpose of s 32 Evidence Act 1906 (WA) - Whether magistrate's reasons sufficient
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 371A, s 378
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32
Result:
Appeal allowed
New trial ordered
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms S Linton
Respondent : In person
Solicitors:
Appellant : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
The State of Western Australia v Burke [2011] WASCA 190
Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASC 5
Director of…
Continue reading Palmer v Lacco
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- PALMER -v- LACCO [2013] WASC 236
- Case
- [2013] WASC 236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondent was charged with stealing a motor vehicle, contrary to section 257 of the Criminal Code (WA). After a trial, the respondent was found guilty. The respondent appealed against the conviction, claiming that the magistrate erred in law by finding that there was a case to answer. The respondent argued that the admissions made during the trial were not for the purpose of section 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and that the magistrate's reasons were insufficient. The appeal was heard by the District Court of Western Australia.
The court had to determine whether the admissions made by the respondent were for the purpose of section 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and whether the magistrate's reasons were sufficient. The court had to consider the evidence presented during the trial and determine whether the respondent had a case to answer. The court also had to consider whether the magistrate's reasons were sufficient to justify the finding that the respondent had a case to answer.
The court found that the admissions made by the respondent were not for the purpose of section 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and that the magistrate's reasons were insufficient. The court found that the respondent had no case to answer and allowed the appeal. The court ordered a new trial. The court found that the respondent's admissions were not voluntary and that the magistrate's reasons were insufficient to justify the finding that the respondent had a case to answer. The court found that the respondent's admissions were not relevant to the charge and that the magistrate's reasons did not address the relevant issues.
The court had to determine whether the admissions made by the respondent were for the purpose of section 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and whether the magistrate's reasons were sufficient. The court had to consider the evidence presented during the trial and determine whether the respondent had a case to answer. The court also had to consider whether the magistrate's reasons were sufficient to justify the finding that the respondent had a case to answer.
The court found that the admissions made by the respondent were not for the purpose of section 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and that the magistrate's reasons were insufficient. The court found that the respondent had no case to answer and allowed the appeal. The court ordered a new trial. The court found that the respondent's admissions were not voluntary and that the magistrate's reasons were insufficient to justify the finding that the respondent had a case to answer. The court found that the respondent's admissions were not relevant to the charge and that the magistrate's reasons did not address the relevant issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
New trial ordered
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.