QUINLAN -v- THE POLICE [2007] WASC 44

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 44
Case No:	SJA:1047/2006	Heard:	30 AUGUST 2006
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	26/02/07
No of pages:	46	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES MICHAEL QUINLAN THE POLICE
Catchwords:	Defence against home invasion Use of evidence of independent witness Accepting evidence of complainant where it differs from evidence of independent witness Use of evidence of good character Failure to give adequate reasons
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 244, s 318 Dog Act 1976 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 12A, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 29, s 31, s 32, s 33A, s 33G
Case References:	Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Hajinoor v Dench [2005] WASC 274 Kiama Constructions Pty Ltd v Davey (1996) 40 NSWLR 639 Lawless v Turner [2005] WASC 254 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd v Webb, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980622; 29 October 1998 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 Oui v The Queen [2006] WASCA 76 Pallot v Harrison, unreported; SCt of WA, Library No 950261, 12 May 1995 R v Phillips (1936) 26 Cr App Rep 17 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : QUINLAN -v- THE POLICE [2007] WASC 44 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 30 AUGUST 2006 DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1047 of 2006 BETWEEN : JAMES MICHAEL QUINLAN

Appellant

AND

THE POLICE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE E A WOODS

File No : PE 59154 of 2005

Catchwords:

Defence against home invasion - Use of evidence of independent witness - Accepting evidence of complainant where it differs from evidence of independent witness - Use of evidence of good character - Failure to give adequate reasons

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 244, s 318

Dog Act 1976 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 12A, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 29, s 31, s 32, s 33A, s 33G

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr L B Robbins

Respondent : Mr M G Nicol

Solicitors:

Appellant : Hammond Worthington

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

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 Quinlan v The Police

Details

AGLC: Quinlan v The Police [2007] WASC 44
Case: [2007] WASC 44
Decision Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quinlan v The Police involved the appellant, Quinlan, who was charged with home invasion. Quinlan appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to adequately consider evidence presented by the complainant that differed from that of an independent witness, and in failing to consider evidence of his good character. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The central legal issues revolved around the weight and admissibility of evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial judge should have given more weight to the complainant's evidence, which differed from that of an independent witness, and whether the trial judge failed to adequately consider evidence of the appellant's good character. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for his decision constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the trial judge was not obliged to give reasons for his findings of fact and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge's approach to the evidence. The court found that the trial judge had considered the complainant's evidence but had rejected it in favour of the independent witness's evidence, which was consistent with other evidence in the case. The court also found that the evidence of good character was not relevant to the issue of guilt and did not warrant consideration. The court concluded that the trial judge's approach to the evidence was not flawed and that the appeal should be 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.