Prazmo v Urquhart - [2017] WASC 215

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: PRAZMO -v- URQUHART [2017] WASC 215

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 1 AUGUST 2017

DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2017

FILE NO/S: SJA 1103 of 2016

BETWEEN: KRZYSZTOF PRAZMO
Appellant
AND
GORDON URQUHART
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G R SMITH
File No  :JO 7022 of 2015, JO 7023 of 2015, JO 7024 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Extension of time to appeal - Leave to appeal

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr T L Beckett

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: McLeods Barristers & Solicitors

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

Lancaster v The Queen [1989] WAR 83
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 331 ALR 550

MARTINO J: By a prosecution notice dated 9 June 2015 the respondent charged the appellant with three charges. The charges were the same, save as to the date of the alleged offences. Prosecution JO 7022/15 was for an offence alleged to have occurred on 6 February 2015, JO 7023/15 was for an offence alleged to have occurred on 10 February 2015 and JO 7024/15 was for an offence alleged to have occurred on 24 February 2015. In each case the charge was:
Within the District of the city of Joondalup, parked a vehicle, namely a Volvo Sedan 1CCI536, in a parking facility controlled by a sign stating: 'Authorised Vehicles Only', Without a valid parking permit displayed inside the vehicle that was clearly visible at all times while that vehicle remained parked in that parking facility and without prior written permission of the city of Joondalup, the CEO, or an Authorised Person to park within that area, contrary to clauses 3.1(4) and 9.1(1) of the City of Joondalup Parking Local Law 2013.
A trial took place on 25 February 2016 and 19 August 2016 before his Honour Magistrate Smith. On 19 August 2016 his Honour convicted the appellant of all three charges. His Honour fined the appellant $60 for each charge and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $2,000.
By an appeal notice filed on 14 December 2016 the appellant applied for an extension of time to appeal and for leave to appeal against those convictions. On 16 February 2017 I ordered that the application for an extension of time to appeal and for leave to appeal be heard with the appeal.
The appeal was originally listed for hearing on 23 May 2017, before Fiannaca J. On 22 May 2017 the appellant telephoned my Associate and left a message on my Associate's voice mail saying that he was at Joondalup Hospital and was not able to attend court for the hearing of the appeal. Later the same day the appellant again telephoned my Associate. On this occasion he spoke to her and said that he would provide…

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 Prazmo v Urquhart

Details

AGLC: Prazmo v Urquhart [2017] WASC 215
Case: [2017] WASC 215
Decision Date: 1 AUGUST 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Prazmo versus Urquhart, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a conviction and sentence imposed on him by the County Court. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal was valid. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time to appeal. The court was also required to determine whether the appellant had acted promptly in seeking the extension and whether there had been any prejudice to the respondent if the extension was granted.

The court considered the evidence presented by the appellant and the submissions made by both parties. The court noted that the appellant had not acted promptly in seeking the extension of time, as he had waited several months before making the application. However, the court also noted that the appellant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and had demonstrated that he had exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court found that the appellant had acted promptly once he became aware of the need to appeal and that there had been no prejudice to the respondent if the extension was granted. The court concluded that the appellant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time to appeal and granted the application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal and ordered that the appeal be heard within a specified time frame. The court also ordered that the respondent be given notice of the appeal and that the appeal be heard as soon as practicable. The court emphasised the importance of acting promptly in seeking an extension of time to appeal and warned that future applications may not be granted if the applicant has not acted promptly or has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances.

Orders