SHERKAM -v- PARKER [2002] WASCA 179

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 179
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	SJA:1101/1996	Heard:	24 MAY 2002
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J WHEELER J	Delivered:	27/06/02
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DENIS CONRAD SHERKAM SCOTT BRADLEY PARKER
Catchwords:	Appeal Competency of application Jurisdiction of Full Court under Justices Act
Legislation:	Justices Act, s 206A
Case References:	Meiklejhon v Central Norseman Gold Corporation, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970463 Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431 Matta v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 95061; 15 November 1995 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : SHERKAM -v- PARKER [2002] WASCA 179 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 24 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1101 of 1996 BETWEEN : DENIS CONRAD SHERKAM

Applicant

AND

SCOTT BRADLEY PARKER

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Competency of application - Jurisdiction of Full Court under Justices Act

Legislation:

Justices Act, s 206A

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

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

Meiklejhon v Central Norseman Gold Corporation, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970463; 19 September 1997
Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431
Matta v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 95061; 15 November 1995

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

History

1 On 25 January 1996 there was an incident at Maylands which resulted in Mr Sherkam being charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. On 5 June 1996, Mr Sherkam was convicted after trial in the Court of Petty Sessions. From that conviction, he appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by a single Judge, Steytler J, who on 28 October 1996 dismissed the appeal.

2 Mr Sherkam applied to Steytler J for leave to appeal to the Full Court against the decision which Steytler J had made. On 11 December 1996, Steytler J dismissed that application. However, Steytler J advised Mr Sherkam that he may wish to consider renewing his application for leave to appeal before the Full Court, referring to Meiklejhon v Central Norseman Gold Corporation (unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970463; 19 September 1997). That case is authority for the proposition that where an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court has been refused by the Judge constituting the court appealed from, pursuant to s 206A of the Justices Act 1902, it is competent to the applicant to renew that application before the Full Court. By application filed 13 November 1997, Mr Sherkam renewed his application to the Full Court.

3 The renewed application for leave to appeal was heard on 18 February 1998…

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 Sherkam v Parker

Details

AGLC: Sherkam v Parker [2002] WASCA 179
Case: [2002] WASCA 179
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Sherkam against Parker, raising questions about the competency of an application and the jurisdiction of the Full Court under the Justices Act. The central issue was whether the Full Court had the authority to entertain an appeal from a decision made by a single judge of the Supreme Court. This question arose due to the procedural steps taken by the parties and the nature of the original decision being challenged.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of the Justices Act and the rules governing appeals to the Full Court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Full Court could review decisions made by a single judge, especially when the appeal was filed without the leave of the Full Court. The court needed to balance the procedural requirements set out in the Justices Act with the principles of judicial review and the rights of the appellant.

In examining the matter, the court highlighted that the Justices Act explicitly outlined the circumstances under which an appeal could be brought before the Full Court. It found that the application in question did not meet the statutory criteria for such an appeal, particularly as it was not supported by the necessary leave of the Full Court. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Full Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear it without the requisite leave.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.