ROBINSON -v- HART [2005] WASC 268

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 268
Case No:	SJA:1084/2005	Heard:	18 NOVEMBER 2005
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	13/12/05
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Matter remitted to the Magistrate
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRADLEY WAYNE ROBINSON BURGESS MURRAY HART
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against dismissal of complaint Offence of stealing a motor vehicle Whether Magistrate erred in his interpretation of Criminal Code s 371A in finding that it includes an element of fraudulent intent Whether prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that an accused knew that the use of a vehicle was unlawful Accused's DNA found on interior of vehicle Whether Magistrate erred in finding no case to answer on basis of insufficient evidence Proper test to be applied to no case submission
Legislation:	Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 371A
Case References:	BPZ v Giles, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 970292; 10 June 1997 Houghton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 20 Lyons v Smart (1908) 6 CLR 143 May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482 Pickett v Fuderer, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980475; 27 August 1998 R v Briggs (1987) 24 A Crim R 98 Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56 Waterhouse v Pas, unreported; SCt of WA (Miller J); Library No 980495; 1 September 1998 "A Child" v Coralie Warnes, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 970486; 25 September 1997 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321 R v Mappin (1904) 6 WALR 161

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ROBINSON -v- HART [2005] WASC 268 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 18 NOVEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1084 of 2005 BETWEEN : BRADLEY WAYNE ROBINSON

Appellant

AND

BURGESS MURRAY HART

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P S MICHELIDES

File No : FR 9375 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against dismissal of complaint - Offence of stealing a motor vehicle - Whether Magistrate erred in his interpretation of Criminal Code s 371A in finding that it includes an element of fraudulent intent - Whether prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that an accused knew that the use of a vehicle was unlawful - Accused's DNA found on interior of vehicle - Whether Magistrate erred in finding no case to answer on basis of insufficient evidence - Proper test to be applied to no case submission

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 371A

Result:

Appeal allowed

Matter remitted to the Magistrate

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P D Yovich

Respondent : Mr S A Gabriel

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Aboriginal Legal Service

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

BPZ…

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 Robinson v Hart

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Hart [2005] WASC 268
Case: [2005] WASC 268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley Wayne Robinson appeals against the decision of a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint that Burgess Murray Hart stole a Holden Commodore motor vehicle, contrary to Criminal Code 1913 (WA) ss 378 and 371A. The appeal raises questions as to the elements of the offence of that form of stealing represented by unlawfully using, taking for the purposes of using, or driving or otherwise assuming control of, a motor vehicle, without the consent of its owner, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence before the Magistrate to withstand a no case submission in a prosecution for such an offence. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate. The court held that the learned Magistrate erred in his interpretation of s 371A in finding that it includes an element of fraudulent intent. The court also held that the learned Magistrate erred in finding no case to answer on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Orders