Reynolds v Byram [No 2] - [2025] WASCA 72

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   REYNOLDS -v- BYRAM [No 2] [2025] WASCA 72
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA

HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   7 MAY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   12 MAY 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 - Two appeals against conviction - Appellant convicted in the Magistrates Court on different charges by different magistrates at different hearings - Two single judge appeals dismissed by different judges at different hearings - Application by appellant for an order that the appeals to the Court of Appeal 'be joined and heard together' - Application dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(4), s 18

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No appearance
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	No appearance
Fourth Respondent	:	No appearance
Fifth Respondent	:	No appearance

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):

Reynolds v Byram [2025] WASCA 59
Reynolds v WA Police [2025] WASC 104
Reynolds v WA Police [No 2] [2025] WASC 10

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Appeal notice CACR 23 of 2025 in respect of the single judge appeal decided by Lemonis J

On 24 February 2025, the appellant filed an appeal notice in CACR 23 of 2025. He appeals against the decision of Lemonis J in a single judge appeal from the Magistrates Court. Lemonis J heard the single judge appeal on 15 August 2024 and published his reasons for decision on 20 January 2025. See Reynolds v WA Police [No 2].[1] The single judge appeal before Lemonis J related to charges in the Magistrates Court. Some of those charges were tried before Magistrate Malley and the others were tried before Magistrate Tavener.
[1] Reynolds v WA Police [No 2] [2025] WASC 10.
Lemonis J noted in his reasons that the appellant does not acknowledge that he is 'Kellan John Reynolds'. Rather, the appellant is firmly of the view that he is known by the name 'Kellan John' and he does business by the name 'Kellan John Reynolds', which is an unincorporated entity [2].
Lemonis J set out the procedural history of the charges in the Magistrates Court as follows [5] ‑ [13]:
Charge AL 2097/2021 alleges that the appellant was bound by a family violence restraining order and breached the order. The charge alleged a breach of s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).
Charge AL 2150/2021…

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 [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Byram [No 2] [2025] WASCA 72
Case: [2025] WASCA 72
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Reynolds v Byram [No 2] involved the appellant seeking an order that the appeals against his convictions in the Magistrates Court be joined and heard together in the Court of Appeal. The appellant was convicted on different charges by different magistrates at different hearings, and his appeals against those convictions were dismissed by different judges at different hearings. The appellant's application to join the appeals was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal considering the matter on its own merits. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeals against the appellant's convictions could be joined and heard together.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of procedural fairness and the discretion of the Court to manage its own processes. The Court held that the appeals were not suitable for joinder as they involved different charges, different evidence, and different legal issues. The Court also noted that the appeals had already been heard and dismissed by different judges, and there was no basis for the Court to reconsider the merits of the appeals. The Court emphasised that each appeal must be considered on its own merits, and that the appellant's application for joinder was not in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for the appeals to be joined and heard together. The Court held that the appeals were distinct and could not be joined, and that the appellant's application did not meet the criteria for joinder. The Court also noted that the appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice or unfairness in the separate hearings of the appeals. The Court of Appeal's decision was based on the principle that each appeal must be considered on its own merits, and that the Court has discretion to manage its own processes in the interests of justice. The Court's decision was final and binding on the parties.

Orders