Sikking v Harrod - [2023] WASC 127

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   SIKKING -v- HARROD [2023] WASC 127
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   6 APRIL 2023
DELIVERED          :   21 APRIL 2023
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1079 of 2022
BETWEEN:   BRETT MATTHEW SIKKING
Appellant
AND
MEGAN HARROD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1079 of 2022
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE M HOLGATE
File Number            :   PE 1043 - 1044 of 2022

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Appeal against conviction - Whether verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal is refused on all grounds
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	LM Kristopher
Respondent	:	RN Paljetak

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Savannah Legal
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gardner v Caporn [2005] WASCA 153
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 291
R (a child) v Gwynne (1999) 28 MVR 441
Rundle v Innerd [2015] WASC 340
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Smart v Power [2019] WASCA 106
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25; (2011) 57 MVR 269
Wells v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 27

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

After a trial before a magistrate,[1] the appellant was convicted of two charges alleging that on 5 January 2022 at West Lamington he:
(1)breached a Family Violence Restraining Order contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA); and
(2)wilfully drove a motor vehicle in a reckless manner contrary to s 60(1A)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).
[1] The prosecution notice on charges 1043/2022 and 1044/2022 incorrectly records that pleas of guilty were entered on 14 October 2022. However, as is evident from the transcript of proceedings on 7 and 14 October 2022, the appellant pleaded not guilty to these charges and was convicted after trial.
The appellant was sentenced to a fine of $750 on each charge. A spent conviction order was made in respect of each of the charges. As a result of the reckless driving offence, the appellant was disqualified for six months from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.
The appellant was acquitted of a charge of common assault and two other charges of breaching a family violence restraining order. Those charges arose out of incidents other than the one which was the subject of the charges of which the appellant was convicted.
The appellant applies for leave to appeal against his convictions.

Grounds of appeal

The appellant appeals his conviction on three grounds:
1.The Magistrate erred by basing his decision primarily upon the testimony of one…

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 Sikking v Harrod

Details

AGLC: Sikking v Harrod [2023] WASC 127
Case: [2023] WASC 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Sikking v Harrod was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the appellant, Brett Matthew Sikking, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for breaching a Family Violence Restraining Order and driving recklessly. The appeal was dismissed by Justice Forrester. The appellant had been convicted by a magistrate following a trial and was sentenced to a $750 fine on each charge, with a spent conviction order made for each offence, and a six-month disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence. The learned magistrate's reasons for decision were largely based on the evidence of the complainant, Megan Harrod, who gave detailed evidence of the incident. The appellant's argument that the magistrate should not have relied upon the complainant's evidence, and that the mobile phone footage did not sufficiently establish identity or manner of driving, was rejected by the Supreme Court. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the magistrate's findings and that the verdicts were not unreasonable. Leave to appeal was refused on all grounds, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of $4,000.

Orders