Shi v WA Police - [2024] WASC 475

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   SHI -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 475
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   14 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   12 DECEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1040 of 2024
BETWEEN:   GUANGMING SHI
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1040 of 2024
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE MYERS
File Number            :   AR 17415 of 2023

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single Judge Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Whether verdict of learned magistrate was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave to adduce additional evidence granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction and sentence set aside and judgment of acquittal entered
Costs of the appeal and Magistrates Court to be paid to the appellant to be taxed if not agreed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr P Lochore
Respondent	:	Ms K Dias

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	William Gerard Legal
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office (WA)

Cases referred to in decision:

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
NYL v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 41
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
The Queen v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158
XHA v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 8

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

On 12 June 2024 in the Armadale Magistrates Court the appellant was convicted after trial of a charge that between 11 to 14 December 2023 at Huntingdale, he wilfully and unlawfully damaged a dividing boundary fence, being half the property of Hayley Weston and Tobin Green to the value of $2,600.40.
The appellant has appealed his conviction.
The issue I am required to determine is whether the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
For the reasons which follow the appeal should be allowed and a judgment of acquittal entered.

Trial

Prosecution opening

The prosecution case was that the appellant (who leased the house in which he lived) and his neighbours (the complainants) were in dispute about the fence which divided their properties. The complainants considered it needed repair; the appellant refused to permit them to do so.
The complainants replaced the fence at their own cost. However, it was alleged that between 11 and 14 December 2023, the appellant pushed and pulled on the fence and struck it with various items causing dents and causing it to bend at certain places.

Defence opening

The defence case was that the appellant did not cause any damage to the fence. In the alternative, he denied doing so wilfully.
Counsel for the appellant opened on the basis that there was no consent by the appellant to the removal of the original fence by the complainants. The defence case was that any issues with the new fence were not caused by the appellant but by the way it was installed.

Prosecution case

The prosecution called one witness.

Evidence of…

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 Shi v WA Police 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: [2024] WASC 475
Decision Date: 12 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Shi v State of Western Australia, the appellant, Shi, sought to appeal against his conviction for an offence against the person. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Justice Pullin. Shi contested the decision made by a magistrate, who found him guilty of a serious assault charge. The case revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented during the trial, as well as the magistrate's interpretation and application of the law in reaching the verdict.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the verdict reached by the magistrate was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. This involved a thorough examination of the evidence presented at the trial, including witness testimonies, the appellant's own statements, and any other relevant material. The court also needed to consider whether the magistrate had correctly applied the principles of criminal law in assessing the credibility of the evidence and in determining the appellant's guilt.

The court found that the magistrate's decision was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence presented. Justice Pullin emphasised the importance of the magistrate's role in assessing the credibility of witnesses and determining the facts of the case. The court noted that the magistrate had carefully considered all the evidence and had applied the relevant legal principles correctly. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the legal framework within which the magistrate had operated.

Orders