Said v Watson - [2019] WASCA 72

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   SAID -v- WATSON [2019] WASCA 72
CORAM:   BUSS P
MITCHELL JA
PRITCHARD JA

HEARD:   8 MAY 2019
DELIVERED          :   8 MAY 2019
PUBLISHED           :   10 MAY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CACR 132 of 2018
BETWEEN:   MICHAEL NASSIB SAID
Appellant

AND

GEOFF WATSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   SMITH J
Citation: SAID -v- WATSON [2018] WASC 181
File Number             :   SJA 1057 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal practice - Application for an extension of time in which to file an appellant's case following dismissal of appeal for failure to file an appellant's case - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 197(2)

Result:

Application for an extension of time in which to file an appellant's case is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Wharton v The Queen [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176

REASONS OF THE COURT:

At the conclusion of the hearing of the appellant's application for an extension of time in which to file and serve an appellant's case, we made an order dismissing the application. These are our reasons for making that order.
On 21 August 2017, the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of an offence against reg 197(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), and fined $50. The prosecution notice alleged that, on 16 September 2016 at Wellington Street, Perth, the appellant contravened a red pedestrian signal. The offence is commonly referred to as 'jaywalking'. At trial, the only contentious element of the offence was whether the pedestrian signal facing the appellant was showing red when he entered the intersection.
The appellant filed an appeal notice in the General Division of the Supreme Court on 22 September 2017, in which he sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction. On 20 June 2018, the primary judge made orders refusing an extension of time in which to appeal, refusing leave to appeal on all grounds and dismissing the appeal. Her Honour published written reasons for making those orders, in which she concluded that there was no merit in any of the appellant's proposed grounds of appeal.[1]
[1] Said v Watson [2018] WASC 181.
On 10 July 2018, the appellant filed an appeal notice seeking leave to appeal against the primary judge's orders. Despite being given a number of extensions of time in which to do so, the appellant has never filed an appellant's case that complies with the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA).
On 19 February 2019, Mazza JA ordered that the time for the appellant to file and serve his appellant's case be extended to 4.00 pm on 1 March 2019, failing which the appeal was to be dismissed (springing order). The appellant attempted to file…

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 Said v Watson

Details

AGLC: Said v Watson [2019] WASCA 72
Case: [2019] WASCA 72
Decision Date: 10 MAY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Said versus Watson, the appellant sought an extension of time to file an appellant's case after their initial appeal was dismissed due to the failure to file within the prescribed time. The case was before the court of appeal, which had to consider the application and decide whether the extension should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant could be granted an extension of time to file their case following the dismissal of their appeal. The court had to balance the appellant's right to appeal against the importance of maintaining the integrity of the appellate process and ensuring that appeals are heard within a reasonable time frame.

The court found that the appellant's application for an extension of time turned on its own facts and circumstances. The court noted that while it is important to protect the right to appeal, it is equally important to maintain the efficiency and finality of the appellate process. The court concluded that the appellant's delay in filing their case was not excusable and that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. The court emphasised that each case must be considered on its own merits and that the appellant's circumstances did not warrant an extension of time. The court also noted that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time.

No further orders were made by the court. The dismissal of the appeal and the refusal of the application for an extension of time were final and conclusive. The appellant had the right to seek leave to appeal to a higher court, but this would require a separate application and would not automatically result in a hearing of the appeal on its merits.

Orders