QUARTERMAINE -v- MARSH [2006] WASC 303

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 303
Published:	20/12/2006
Case No:	SJA:1036/2006	Heard:	19 DECEMBER 2006
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	18/12/06
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed No order as to costs
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LARRY PHILLIP QUARTERMAINE DANIEL ROSS MARSH
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Assault occasioning bodily harm Being armed with a dangerous and offensive weapon likely to cause fear Fight between two families outside appellant's residence Applicability of various defences Criminal Code s 25, s 31(3), s 244(1)(c), s 246, s 247, s 248, s 250, s 254(2) Whether Magistrate correct in finding prosecution had negatived all defences
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 25, s 31(3), s 222, s 244(1)(c), s 246, s 247, s 248, s 250, s 254
Case References:	Nil Banks v Properjohn, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920033; 17 February 1992 BG V The State of Western Australia (2005) 152 A Crim R 207 Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454 Watt v Thomas (1947) AC 484

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : QUARTERMAINE -v- MARSH [2006] WASC 303 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 19 DECEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 19 DECEMBER 2006 PUBLISHED : 21 DECEMBER 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1036 of 2006 BETWEEN : LARRY PHILLIP QUARTERMAINE

Appellant

AND

DANIEL ROSS MARSH

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S RICHARDSON

File No : CA 972 of 2005, CA 973 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Being armed with a dangerous and offensive weapon likely to cause fear - Fight between two families outside appellant's residence - Applicability of various defences - Criminal Code s 25, s 31(3), s 244(1)(c), s 246, s 247, s 248, s 250,

(Page 2)

s 254(2) - Whether Magistrate correct in finding prosecution had negatived all defences

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 25, s 31(3), s 222, s 244(1)(c), s 246, s 247, s 248, s 250, s 254

Result:

Appeal dismissed

No order as to costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P G Giudice

Respondent : Ms J Andretich

Solicitors:

Appellant : George Giudice

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Banks v Properjohn, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920033; 17 February 1992
BG V The State of Western Australia (2005) 152 A Crim R 207
Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454
Watt v Thomas (1947) AC 484

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: This is an appeal against conviction arising out of the conviction by the appellant on 3 April 2006 in the Magistrates' Court at…

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 Quartermaine v Marsh

Details

AGLC: Quartermaine v Marsh [2006] WASC 303
Case: [2006] WASC 303
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Quartermaine v Marsh, the appellant, Mr. Quartermaine, sought to appeal against his conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm. The incident in question involved a physical altercation between two families outside Mr. Quartermaine's residence. The dispute arose from the involvement of various criminal provisions, including assault occasioning bodily harm, being armed with a dangerous and offensive weapon likely to cause fear, and other related offences under the Criminal Code. The central legal issues involved the applicability of several defences and whether the Magistrate was correct in finding that the prosecution had successfully negated all defences presented by the appellant.

The court examined the appellant's contentions regarding the applicability of defences such as self-defence, provocation, and duress. The appellant argued that he acted in self-defence or that the circumstances were such that he was provoked into a state of mind where he could not control his actions. The court also considered whether the prosecution had successfully negated these defences. The court meticulously analysed the evidence, witness testimonies, and the context in which the offence was committed. Ultimately, the court determined that the Magistrate had correctly found that the prosecution had indeed negated all defences presented by the appellant. The evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Quartermaine's actions were not justified under any of the defences he raised.

Given the thorough analysis and the findings that the prosecution had adequately negated all defences, the court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning and application of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code were found to be sound. As a result, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. This decision reaffirms the importance of the burden of proof in criminal cases and the necessity for the prosecution to negate any applicable defences to secure a conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

No order as to costs

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.