QUARTERMAINE -v- GIBLETT [2004] WASCA 34

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 34
Case No:	SJA:1127/2003	Heard:	16 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	10/03/04
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HARRY JAMES QUARTERMAINE SHANE GIBLETT
Catchwords:	Appeal Criminal law Appeal against conviction by Magistrate of assault occasioning bodily harm "Inconsistencies" in evidence of complainant "Inconsistencies" between testimony of complainant and other evidence in prosecution case Defendant not giving evidence Whether Magistrate erred in finding charge proved beyond reasonable doubt
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Gatica-Evans v Wear [2004] WASCA 25 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Rafferty v Sammiller [2003] WASCA 181 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588 Vujcic v Moffitt, unreported; SCt of WA (Templeman J); Library No 970156; 11 April 1997 Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Long v Mayger [2003] WASCA 223 Pledge v Davey [2000] WASCA 20 Scarce v Killalea [2003] WASCA 81

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : QUARTERMAINE -v- GIBLETT [2004] WASCA 34 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 16 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 10 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1127 of 2003 BETWEEN : HARRY JAMES QUARTERMAINE

Appellant

AND

SHANE GIBLETT

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Criminal law - Appeal against conviction by Magistrate of assault occasioning bodily harm - "Inconsistencies" in evidence of complainant - "Inconsistencies" between testimony of complainant and other evidence in prosecution case - Defendant not giving evidence - Whether Magistrate erred in finding charge proved beyond reasonable doubt

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr I MacFarlane

Respondent : Mr S F Rafferty

Solicitors:

Appellant : Ian MacFarlane

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Gatica-Evans v Wear [2004] WASCA 25
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Rafferty v Sammiller [2003] WASCA 181
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588
Vujcic v Moffitt, unreported; SCt of WA (Templeman J); Library No 970156; 11 April 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
Long v Mayger [2003] WASCA 223
Pledge v Davey [2000] WASCA 20
Scarce v Killalea [2003] WASCA 81

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an appeal against conviction in the Armadale Court of Petty Sessions on 31 October 2003 before Mr S Malley SM on a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code.

2 The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon a term he was then currently serving. An order was made that he be eligible for parole.

3 On 27 November 2003,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quartermaine v Giblett and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] WASCA 34
Decision Date: 10 MARCH 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Quartermaine v Giblett, the defendant, Quartermaine, appealed against his conviction by a Magistrate for assault occasioning bodily harm. The complainant, Giblett, alleged that Quartermaine had physically assaulted her, causing her harm. The case came before the court for appeal on the basis that the Magistrate had erred in finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt. The central issue for the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and other discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The defendant did not give evidence during the trial.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence presented, focusing on the inconsistencies in Giblett's testimony and the other discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The court examined whether these inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the reliability of the evidence as a whole. The court also considered the principle that the trier of fact, in this case the Magistrate, is best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their evidence. The court held that despite the inconsistencies, the overall evidence was sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.