Peterson v Maidment - [2022] WASC 369

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   PETERSON -v- MAIDMENT [2022] WASC 369
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   27 SEPTEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   1 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1042 of 2022
BETWEEN:   NATASHA JANE PETERSON
Appellant
AND
SCOTT ANTHONY MAIDMENT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1042 of 2022
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE OLIVER
File Number            :   PE 4623 of 2021

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Single judge appeal – Appeal against conviction - Whether appellant behaved in a disorderly manner – Meaning of 'offensive' - Whether the magistrate erred by applying the wrong test in the context of a political communication – Whether the appellant's conduct was 'offensive' - Whether conviction was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence - Criminal Code s 74A

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
The Criminal Code (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused on ground 1
Leave to appeal refused on ground 2
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	K A Heslop
Respondent	:	S J Cobbett

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Kathryn Heslop
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; (2004) 220 CLR 1
CRC v Taylor [2019] WASC 187
Heanes v Herangi [2007] WASC 175; (2007) 175 A Crim R 175
Keft v Fraser (unreported, WASC, Library No 6251, 21 April 1986)
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Melser v Police [1967] NZLR 437
Mogridge v Foster [1999] WASCA 177
Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4; (2013) 249 CLR 92
Monis v The Queen; Droudis v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 231
Moylan v Lee [2022] WASC 195
NYL v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 41
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

On 23 January 2021, the appellant was charged with behaving in a disorderly manner in sight or hearing of any person who was in a public place, contrary to s 74A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (charge PE 4623/2021).
The appellant stood trial before a magistrate on 15 March 2022 and on 8 April 2022 she was convicted and fined the sum of $2,000.
The appellant has appealed against her conviction.

The trial

The prosecution particularised the allegation as relying on s 74A(1)(a) and (b), alleging that the appellant's language was offensive and that her behaviour was offensive.[1]

The evidence

[1] Transcript, WA Police v Natasha Jane Peterson, Magistrates Court of Western Australia, 15 March 2022, 3 ‑ 4 (Transcript of Proceedings 15 March 2022).

The events of 5 December 2020 can be seen on the CCTV footage from the store, which became Exhibit 1,[2] and the audiovisual footage which was recorded by the appellant's companion and taken from the appellant's Facebook page, tendered as Exhibit 2.[3] In those circumstances it is not necessary to summarise the evidence of the witnesses…

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 Peterson v Maidment

Details

AGLC: Peterson v Maidment [2022] WASC 369
Case: [2022] WASC 369
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peterson v Maidment involved an appeal against a conviction for disorderly behaviour in a public place under s 74A of the Criminal Code. Natasha Jane Peterson was convicted of disorderly behaviour after she attended a market in a provocative state of dress, holding a sign and shouting anti-dairy industry slogans. The appeal was heard by Justice Forrester of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, who dismissed the appeal on both grounds raised. The first ground was that the magistrate had erred in applying the wrong legal test to determine whether the conduct was 'offensive', and the second ground was that the conviction was unsafe and unsupported by the evidence.

Justice Forrester found that the magistrate had applied the correct legal test in determining whether the appellant's conduct was disorderly. The court held that the test to be applied was objective and based on the effect of the conduct on reasonable persons in the relevant circumstances, as set out in Melser v Police. The court further held that the magistrate had properly applied this test to the facts as she found them, and that the appellant's conduct and language had the potential to seriously offend reasonable persons in their lawful use and enjoyment of the public place.

On the second ground of appeal, Justice Forrester found that the conviction was supported by the evidence. The court held that it was open to the magistrate to find that the appellant's conduct would so offend a reasonable person as to prevent or interfere with their lawful use and enjoyment of the market, to such an extent as to merit criminal punishment. The court emphasised that the appellant's language and imagery, combined with her provocative state of dress, would have substantially interfered with the specific use and enjoyment of the market by a reasonable person.

Orders