RENDELL -v- DOUGLAS [2015] WASC 36

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 36
Published:	02/02/2015
Case No:	SJA:1083/2014	Heard:	28 JANUARY 2015
Coram:	JENKINS J	Delivered:	28/01/15
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time within which to appeal granted Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Conviction, sentence and costs order set aside Charge remitted to Perth Magistrate's Court to be heard by a different magistrate
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL ST PATRICK RENDELL CRAIG ANDREW DOUGLAS
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal Conviction for contravening a red traffic control arrow Appellant (accused) failed to appear at hearing Magistrate refused adjournment requested on appellant's behalf Good reason for failing to attend court Errors of fact and law Miscarriage of justice
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 14 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55, s 71 Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), s 40
Case References:	House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290 Saad v Baron [2012] WASC 507 The State of Western Australia v Silich [2011] WASCA 135; (2011) 43 WAR 285

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : RENDELL -v- DOUGLAS [2015] WASC 36 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 28 JANUARY 2015 DELIVERED : 28 JANUARY 2015 PUBLISHED : 2 FEBRUARY 2015 FILE NO/S : SJA 1083 of 2014 BETWEEN : MICHAEL ST PATRICK RENDELL

Appellant

AND

CRAIG ANDREW DOUGLAS

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE B A LANE

File No : PE 64891 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Conviction for contravening a red traffic control arrow - Appellant (accused) failed to appear at hearing - Magistrate refused adjournment requested on appellant's behalf - Good reason for failing to attend court - Errors of fact and law - Miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 14

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55, s 71
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), s 40

Result:

Extension of time within which to appeal granted

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction, sentence and costs order set aside
Charge remitted to Perth Magistrate's Court to be heard by a different magistrate

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr J L Winton

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290
Saad v Baron [2012] WASC 507
The State of Western Australia v Silich [2011] WASCA 135; (2011) 43 WAR 285

JENKINS J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 28 January 2015 and has been edited from transcript).

1 This is an appeal from the decision of a magistrate sitting in the Magistrates Court at Perth on 23 May 2014. The appeal is against…

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 Rendell v Douglas

Details

AGLC: Rendell v Douglas [2015] WASC 36
Case: [2015] WASC 36
Decision Date: 2 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rendell v Douglas, the appellant, Mr Rendell, sought an appeal against his conviction for contravening a red traffic control arrow. Mr Rendell failed to attend the hearing before the Magistrates Court at which his conviction was upheld. The Magistrate refused a request by Mr Rendell's legal representative for an adjournment on the basis that Mr Rendell was unable to attend due to illness. The appellant subsequently applied for leave to appeal, contending that he had a good reason for his failure to appear at the hearing, and that there had been errors of fact and law in the proceedings below which amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was brought before the District Court of Western Australia.
The central issue before the court was whether Mr Rendell's failure to attend the hearing was due to a good reason, and whether there had been errors of fact and law in the proceedings below which amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court had to consider whether the Magistrate had erred in refusing the adjournment and whether this amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The court found that the Magistrate had erred in law in refusing the adjournment and that this error had caused a miscarriage of justice. The court held that Mr Rendell had a good reason for his failure to attend the hearing, as he was genuinely ill and unable to attend. The court also found that there had been errors of fact and law in the proceedings below, as the Magistrate had not considered all of the evidence before him and had not properly assessed Mr Rendell's reasons for failing to attend the hearing. The court granted the appellant leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction, sentence and costs order, and remitting the charge to the Perth Magistrate's Court to be heard by a different magistrate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time within which to appeal granted

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Conviction, sentence and costs order set aside

Charge remitted to Perth Magistrate's Court to be heard by a different magistrate

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.