R -v- HUTCHINSON [2003] WASCA 323

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 323
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:29/2003	Heard:	12 NOVEMBER 2003
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	18/12/03
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed New trial ordered
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN SUSANNE DOROTHY HUTCHINSON
Catchwords:	Appeal and new trial Verdict of acquittal by direction Prosecution right of appeal Whether error of law Whether new trial ordered Criminal law and procedure Elements of offence Whether knowledge of age an element of offence under Prostitution Act 2000 Burden and standard of proof Whether common law applies Whether mistaken belief in fact Effect of statutory presumption
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA) Prostitution Act 2000 (WA)
Case References:	R v Mullen (1938) 59 CLR 124 R v Turner (2001) 25 WAR 258. , R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21 Van den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977 Woolmington v The DPP [1935] AC 462 Geraldton Fishermen's Co-op Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 Munckton v Webb [1986] WAR 183 Parker v The Queen (1997) 186 CLR 494

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- HUTCHINSON [2003] WASCA 323 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

STEYTLER J

MCKECHNIE J

HEARD : 12 NOVEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 18 DECEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 29 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

SUSANNE DOROTHY HUTCHINSON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal and new trial - Verdict of acquittal by direction - Prosecution right of appeal - Whether error of law - Whether new trial ordered - Criminal law and procedure - Elements of offence - Whether knowledge of age an element of offence under Prostitution Act 2000 - Burden and standard of proof - Whether common law applies - Whether mistaken belief in fact - Effect of statutory presumption

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)

Prostitution Act 2000 (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

New trial ordered

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr K M Tavener & Mr L M Fox

Respondent : Mr T F Percy QC & Mr N J Mullany

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Dwyer Durack

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

R v Mullen (1938) 59 CLR 124
R v Turner (2001) 25 WAR 258
R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21
Van den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158
Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977
Woolmington v The DPP [1935] AC 462

Case(s) also cited:

Geraldton Fishermen's Co-op Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Munckton v Webb [1986] WAR 183
Parker v The Queen (1997) 186 CLR 494

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this appeal should be allowed, the judgment of…

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 R v Hutchinson

Details

AGLC: R v Hutchinson [2003] WASCA 323
Case: [2003] WASCA 323
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved Hutchinson, who was acquitted by direction in relation to charges under the Prostitution Act 2000. The prosecution appealed the acquittal, arguing that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury to acquit the defendant. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether there was an error of law in the trial judge's direction and whether a new trial should be ordered.

The court considered whether knowledge of the age of the person involved was an element of the offence under the Prostitution Act 2000. It examined the burden and standard of proof, and whether the common law applied to mistaken beliefs in fact. The court also looked into the effect of the statutory presumption within the Act and whether it affected the trial judge's direction to the jury.

The court found that there was indeed an error of law in the trial judge's direction. The statutory presumption under the Prostitution Act 2000 did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove the age of the person involved. Instead, it required the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew, or was reckless as to whether, the person was under 18 years of age. The court concluded that the error of law was significant enough to warrant a new trial.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered. The court's decision underscored the importance of correctly applying statutory provisions and understanding the burden and standard of proof in criminal cases. The legal principles established in this case are crucial for future proceedings involving similar offences under the Prostitution Act 2000.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

New trial ordered

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.