Penfold v WA Police - [2024] WASC 98

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   PENFOLD -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 98
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   8 MARCH 2024
DELIVERED          :   28 MARCH 2024
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1076 of 2023
BETWEEN:   JAMES COYLE PENFOLD
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1076 of 2023
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE B WHITE
File Number            :   CA 700/2021, CA 701/2021 & CA 702/2021

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Common assault - Failing to give police personal details - Appeal against conviction - Whether verdicts unreasonable and cannot be supported - Whether accused satisfied the evidentiary burden at trial for provocation and self-defence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 313(1)(b)
Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA), s 16(6)

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 1 to 6 inclusive not granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Ms S Walsh

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182
Goodwyn v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 141
Hounslow v Woodward [2007] WASC 27
Iskov v Matters [1977] VR 220
Labriola v Morgan [2017] WASC 256
Lau v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 16
Maines v Roy (1990) 1 WAR 508
Pemble v The Queen [1971] HCA 20; (1971) 124 CLR 107
Quinlivan v Lumpkin [2008] WASC 120
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 90 ALJR 1013
Wells v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 27

MCGRATH J:

The appellant was convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court of two charges of common assault contrary to s 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (WA), and one charge of failing to give police his personal details contrary to s 16(6) of the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA).
The learned Magistrate imposed fines for the offending and made a spent conviction order in respect to the three convictions.[1]
[1] ts 30 (15/08/2023).
The appellant appeals his convictions on a number of grounds, with the primary contention being that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
For the following reasons, I have determined that leave to appeal is not granted on all grounds and therefore, the appeal must be taken as dismissed.

Magistrates Court proceedings

The prosecution case at trial was that on 4 October 2021 at a boat ramp in Exmouth, the appellant assaulted Mr Fitzgerald and Ms Aranda. The appellant and Mr Fitzgerald had a history of animosity prior to the incident.[2]
[2] ts 16 (15/08/2023).
The prosecution case was that the appellant approached Mr Fitzgerald at the boat ramp and without any provocation, opened the driver's door of his vehicle and commenced assaulting him by striking him with clenched fists and by…

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 Penfold v WA Police

Details

AGLC: Penfold v WA Police [2024] WASC 98
Case: [2024] WASC 98
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the Court of Appeal involved the applicant, Penfold, who had been convicted of common assault following an incident with police officers. The central dispute was whether the conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, Penfold was found to have failed to provide his personal details to police officers, which escalated into an assault. The appeal hinged on the contention that the applicant had satisfied the evidentiary burden for provocation and self-defence. The court needed to determine whether these defences were adequately supported by the evidence and if the verdict was unreasonable in light of the defences presented.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the verdicts of the lower court were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, and if Penfold had discharged the evidentiary burden for the defences of provocation and self-defence. The court had to scrutinise the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the application of the legal principles to determine if the defences were appropriately considered and whether the verdicts were justified. The appeal was focused on the sufficiency of the evidence and the application of the legal standards to the facts of the case.

In its reasoning, the court found that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence and the legal principles relevant to the defences of provocation and self-defence. The court determined that the trial judge had not erred in law or made a finding that was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court held that the applicant had not discharged the evidentiary burden for either defence, and the verdicts were consistent with the evidence presented. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the applicant. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the trial judge's role in assessing the evidence and applying legal principles to arrive at a just outcome.

Orders