Shaun Kevin Wright v Laura Jane McMurchy - [2013] HCASL 70

SHAUN KEVIN WRIGHT
v
LAURA JANE MCMURCHY
[2013] HCASL 70
P5/2013

The applicant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia of, doing an indecent act in a public place contrary to s 203(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA). The facts material to that offence were that, as a taxi driver on night shift in the metropolitan area of Perth, he used his mobile phone to take photographs up the skirt of a female passenger who was unconscious in the front seat of his taxi.
The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. His appeal was dismissed by Commissioner Sleight. He further appealed, by leave, to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia on grounds which included that the material facts did not disclose the offence of which he was convicted. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held the interior of a taxi to fall within the definition of "public place" in s 1 of the Criminal Code.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The materials filed in support of the application seek to re-agitate the same issues on substantially the same grounds as were before the Court of Appeal. They disclose no reason to doubt the correctness of Court of Appeal's decision.
The applicant requires an extension of time in which to file his application for special leave to appeal to this Court. That extension should not be granted: an appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
8 May 2013 S.J. Gageler

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Shaun Kevin Wright v Laura Jane McMurchy and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Shaun Kevin Wright, had previously pleaded guilty to taking photographs of a female passenger while she was unconscious in his taxi, an act which he was convicted of under section 203(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA). His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and subsequently the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which held that the interior of a taxi constitutes a 'public place' under the statute. Wright sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the term 'public place'. The application also requested an extension of time to file the special leave application, which was denied.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the interior of a taxi can be considered a 'public place' under the Criminal Code (WA). Wright contended that the term 'public place' should be interpreted restrictively to exclude the interior of a vehicle, while the Court of Appeal had ruled otherwise. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the application for special leave should be granted, considering the merits of the appeal and the likelihood of success in the High Court.

The High Court found no basis to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, noting that the materials submitted did not provide sufficient grounds to question the interpretation of the term 'public place'. The court further concluded that an appeal to the High Court would have no prospect of success, as it would not offer a new or compelling argument that was not already considered by the lower courts. The application for an extension of time was also dismissed, and the special leave application was ultimately denied. The High Court ordered the Registrar to prepare and seal an order dismissing Wright's application.

Orders