SAAD -v- BARON [2012] WASC 507
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 507 | |
| 21/12/2012 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1058/2012 | 27 NOVEMBER & 14 DECEMBER 2012 | |
| Coram: | BEECH J | 14/12/12 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal upheld | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RIMON RIMON SAAD CHRISTOPHER BEAU BARON PAUL RICHARD HODGSON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Speeding offences Application for adjournment based on partner's medical condition Application refused Whether discretion miscarried Magistrate proceeding under s 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) when accused represented by counsel Whether accused who does not appear in person but is represented by counsel has appeared Whether s 55 of Criminal Procedure Act was engaged |
Legislation: | Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55 |
Case References: | Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union of Workers - Western Australian Branch v Bell-A-Bike Rottnest Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 157 CBFC Ltd v Charitopoulos [2009] SASC 30 Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55 Curtin University of Technology v Woods Bagot Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 449 Ebatarinja v Deland [1998] HCA 62; (1998) 194 CLR 444 Grover v Scott [2010] WASCA 164 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Koh v City of Joondalup [2012] WASC 493 Lewis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 155; (2008) 37 WAR 483 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 R v Gobert (1958) SR (NSW) 114 Sharma v Hodgson [2012] WASC 433 Tallot v Matier [2012] WASC 290 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER BEAU BARON
First Respondent
PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Second Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE K M BOOTHMAN
File No : PE 37428 of 2011, PE 39652 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Speeding offences - Application for adjournment based on partner's medical condition - Application refused - Whether discretion
(Page 2)
miscarried - Magistrate proceeding under s 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) when accused represented by counsel - Whether accused who does not appear in person but is represented by counsel has appeared - Whether s 55 of Criminal Procedure Act was engaged
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55
Result:
Appeal upheld
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC
First Respondent : Mr P D Spragg
Second Respondent : Mr P D Spragg
Solicitors:
Appellant : S C Nigam & Co
First Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union of Workers -…
Continue reading Saad v Baron
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- SAAD -v- BARON [2012] WASC 507
- Case
- [2012] WASC 507
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Saad v Baron involved an application by the accused, Saad, for an adjournment due to his partner's medical condition, which was deemed serious enough to warrant his presence in court. The dispute arose in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, where Saad was charged with speeding offences. The central issue before the court was whether the magistrate had the discretion to adjourn the case under section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) when the accused was represented by counsel and did not appear in person. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if Saad could be considered to have appeared before the court when represented by counsel, and if section 55 was applicable in such circumstances.
The court considered the statutory provisions and the principle that an accused must appear in person to be granted an adjournment under section 55. It was held that since Saad did not appear in person and was only represented by counsel, the magistrate did not have the discretion to adjourn the case based on his partner's medical condition. The court emphasised that the statutory language required the accused to personally appear before the court for the adjournment to be granted. Additionally, the court concluded that the accused was not considered to have appeared before the court when only represented by counsel, thus section 55 was not engaged in this scenario.
Ultimately, the appeal was upheld, and the orders made by the magistrate were set aside. This decision highlights the importance of personal appearance by the accused in the context of adjournment applications under section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).
The court considered the statutory provisions and the principle that an accused must appear in person to be granted an adjournment under section 55. It was held that since Saad did not appear in person and was only represented by counsel, the magistrate did not have the discretion to adjourn the case based on his partner's medical condition. The court emphasised that the statutory language required the accused to personally appear before the court for the adjournment to be granted. Additionally, the court concluded that the accused was not considered to have appeared before the court when only represented by counsel, thus section 55 was not engaged in this scenario.
Ultimately, the appeal was upheld, and the orders made by the magistrate were set aside. This decision highlights the importance of personal appearance by the accused in the context of adjournment applications under section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld
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.