Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE R D YOUNG
MAGISTRATE M M FLYNN
File Number : PE 8568 of 2017
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Contravene red pedestrian signal - Grounds rely upon challenge to findings of reliability of evidence - Appeal out of time
Whether it was appropriate for magistrate to question witnesses when the accused self-represented
Order made by magistrate to set aside summonses prior to hearing of the prosecution charge does not constitute a decision that may be subject to an appeal
Decisions made by the magistrates to refuse to hear applications for disclosure did not constitute decisions in the matter that may be subject to an appeal
No error demonstrated in decision made by magistrate to refuse to join third parties as co‑accused to the charge against the accused - The refusal in this matter does not constitute a decision that may be subject to an appeal
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 7(1), s 7(4), s 9(1), s 9(2) Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 20, s 20(5), s 42(1), s 42(1)(e), s 60(5), s 60(5)(a), s 60(5)(b), s 61, s 82(a), s 82(b), s 82(c), s 82(d), s 82(e), s 163(1), s 163(3), s 163(3)(a), s 182 Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 3, reg 9, reg 197(2)
Result:
Leave to appeal out of time refused Leave to appeal on all grounds refused Appeal dismissed
The State of Western Australia v Burke [No 2] [2010]…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Said v Watson [2018] WASC 181
Case
[2018] WASC 181
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerns Said, who was charged with contravening a red pedestrian signal at a junction. The defendant argued that the conviction should be overturned due to the reliability of the evidence presented. Additionally, the defendant contended that the magistrate improperly questioned witnesses during the trial, which was problematic given that Said was representing himself. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had to determine the legal issues regarding the timing and grounds of the appeal, the appropriateness of the magistrate's conduct, and the validity of the decisions made by the magistrate.
The court had to decide whether the grounds for the appeal were valid, considering that the appeal was filed out of time. The court also needed to assess if it was appropriate for the magistrate to question witnesses when the defendant was self-represented. Furthermore, the court examined the meaning of 'decision' under section 5(1) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), to determine if certain actions by the magistrate constituted a decision that could be appealed. The court needed to clarify whether the magistrate's orders to set aside summonses, refusals to hear applications for disclosure, and decisions to not join third parties as co-accused constituted appealable decisions.
The court concluded that the order made by the magistrate to set aside the summonses did not constitute a decision that could be appealed under the Act. Similarly, the decisions to refuse to hear applications for disclosure did not qualify as appealable decisions. The court also determined that there was no error in the magistrate's decision to refuse to join third parties as co-accused, and this refusal did not constitute a decision that could be appealed. The court found that the defendant had not demonstrated any error in the magistrate's questioning of witnesses, given that the questioning was considered appropriate in the context of a self-represented defendant. The court dismissed the appeal.