Reynolds v Byram - [2025] WASCA 59

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   REYNOLDS -v- BYRAM [2025] WASCA 59
CORAM:   HALL JA
ARCHER JA

HEARD:   16 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   16 APRIL 2025
PUBLISHED           :   17 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACR 23 of 2025
BETWEEN:   KELLAN JOHN REYNOLDS
Appellant
AND
WAYNE BYRAM
First Respondent
KRISS LOGAN
Second Respondent
JEFFREY OSBORNE
Third Respondent
KAI PANTON
Fourth Respondent
CHRISTOPHER PICARD
Fifth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LEMONIS J
File Number            :   SJA 1072 of 2023

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Application for stay of orders remitting matters to Magistrates Court pending resolution of appeal - Whether appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused - Whether appeal has reasonable prospects of success

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 12, s 18

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	J D Berson
Second Respondent	:	J D Berson
Third Respondent	:	J D Berson
Fourth Respondent	:	J D Berson
Fifth Respondent	:	J D Berson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Third Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Fourth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Fifth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Anderson v Prankhurst [2012] WASC 287
Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308
Reynolds v WA Police [No 2] [2025] WASC 10

REASONS OF THE COURT:

The appellant applied for a suspension order under s 12 and s 18 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), to suspend the operation of orders made by the primary judge until the resolution of his appeal to this court. The application was heard on 16 April 2025. At the completion of the hearing, we dismissed the application. These are our reasons for that decision.
The background can be stated briefly. The appellant was charged with one count of breaching a family violence restraining order contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) (charge AL 2097 of 2021) and two counts of breaching a bail undertaking contrary to s 51(1) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) (charges AL 2150 of 2021 and AL 682 of 2022). The charges were dealt with in the Magistrates Court. After separate hearings, the appellant was convicted of all three counts.[1]
[1] Prosecution notice, dated 5 May 2022 (AL 2097 of 2021); prosecution notice, dated 2 August 2022 (AL 2150 of 2021); prosecution notice, dated 2 August 2022 (AL 682 of 2022).
The appellant appealed his convictions to the General Division under pt 2 div 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act. The appeal was heard by Lemonis J on 15 August 2024. On 20 January 2025, his Honour delivered his decision.[2] In respect of one of the breaches of bail, his Honour found that the appellant had in fact appeared…

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 Reynolds v Byram

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Byram [2025] WASCA 59
Case: [2025] WASCA 59
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Reynolds, was convicted of possessing a knife in a public place contrary to section 4 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). The conviction was made by the Magistrates Court and was appealed to the District Court. Reynolds applied for a stay of the orders remitting the matters to the Magistrates Court pending resolution of the appeal. The primary issue was whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was refused. A further issue was whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.

The court considered the criteria for granting a stay of orders pending appeal and found that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was refused. The appeal raised questions of law of significant public importance concerning the interpretation of section 4 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). The court found that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success as the argument raised was not frivolous or vexatious. The court also found that the public interest in having the appeal determined outweighed any prejudice to the respondent if the stay was granted. The application for a stay was therefore allowed.

The court ordered that the appeal against conviction be heard in the District Court and that the orders remitting the matters to the Magistrates Court be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The case was remitted to the District Court for further hearings.

Orders