PATTERSON -v- FOORD [2003] WASCA 157
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 157 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1152/2002 | 18 JULY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MILLER J | 18/07/03 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Decision to dismiss charge set aside Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing according to law | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ELISSA CLAIRE PATTERSON KATHRYN MARIE FOORD |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Justices Stealing Dismissal of charge Receipt of hearsay evidence Lack of any findings as to credibility of witnesses Adequacy of reasons Whether charge should have been dismissed Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 378 Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(b) |
Case References: | Allen v Gittos (1995) 13 WAR 560 Button v The Queen [2002] WASCA 35 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 Bannon v R (1995) 185 CLR 1 Castlecity Pty Ltd & Anor v Newvintage Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 30 Cobbett v Hudson (1850) 15 QB 988 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Driscoll v R (1977) 137 CLR 517 Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65 Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414 Hedge v Thurstun [2001] WASCA 43 Maric v R (1978) 20 ALR 518 Mraz v R (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Greatorex (1994) 74 A Crim R 496 R v Hall [1971] VR 293 R v Jacquith & Anor [1989] Crim LR 508 R v Ryan (1984) 55 ALR 408 R v Secretary of State for India; Ex parte Ezekiel [1941] 2 KB 169 Rabey v R [1980] WAR 84 Re Van Beelan (1974) 9 SASR 163 Smith v R (1992) 7 WAR 527 Stones v Byron (1846) 4 Dowl & L 393 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
KATHRYN MARIE FOORD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Justices - Stealing - Dismissal of charge - Receipt of hearsay evidence - Lack of any findings as to credibility of witnesses - Adequacy of reasons - Whether charge should have been dismissed - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 378
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(b)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Decision to dismiss charge set aside
Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing according to law
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr C Porter
Respondent : Ms H E Prince
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Helen Prince
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Allen v Gittos (1995) 13 WAR 560
Button v The Queen [2002] WASCA 35
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365
Case(s) also cited:
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Bannon…
Continue reading Patterson v Foord
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Patterson v Foord [2003] WASCA 157
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 157
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Patterson was charged with stealing by the Court of Petty Sessions. The defendant, Foord, appealed against the dismissal of the charge. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal centred on the dismissal of the charge and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the lower court for dismissing the charge. The court had to determine if the charge should have been dismissed, considering the receipt of hearsay evidence and the lack of any findings as to the credibility of the witnesses.
The Supreme Court found that the lower court had erred in dismissing the charge without providing adequate reasons. The court held that the dismissal of the charge was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The lower court had failed to consider the hearsay evidence and make findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be allowed, the decision to dismiss the charge should be set aside, and the matter should be remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing according to law. The court emphasised that each case must be determined on its own facts, and the dismissal of a charge should not be a blanket decision without proper consideration of the evidence and findings of fact.
The Supreme Court found that the lower court had erred in dismissing the charge without providing adequate reasons. The court held that the dismissal of the charge was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The lower court had failed to consider the hearsay evidence and make findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be allowed, the decision to dismiss the charge should be set aside, and the matter should be remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing according to law. The court emphasised that each case must be determined on its own facts, and the dismissal of a charge should not be a blanket decision without proper consideration of the evidence and findings of fact.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Decision to dismiss charge set aside
Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing according to law
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.