SMALL -v- EVANS [2001] WASCA 343

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 343
Case No:	SJA:1114/2001	Heard:	23 OCTOBER 2001
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	6/11/01
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GREGORY SMALL MICHAEL ALEC EVANS
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction under Justices Act 1902 Issues of credibility Evidence of principal prosecution witness preferred Magistrate held not to be in error Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Justices Act 1902, s 196, s 199 Police Act 1892, s 80
Case References:	"M" v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Brunskill & Anor v Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Co Ltd & Ors (1985) 62 ALR 53 Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 De Vries & Anor v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1 Harling (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 178 ALR 577 State Railway Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588 Pledge v Davey [2000] WASCA 20 Walsh v Law Society (NSW) (1999) 198 CLR 73

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : SMALL -v- EVANS [2001] WASCA 343 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 23 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1114 of 2001 BETWEEN : GREGORY SMALL

Appellant

AND

MICHAEL ALEC EVANS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction under Justices Act 1902 - Issues of credibility - Evidence of principal prosecution witness preferred - Magistrate held not to be in error - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902, s 196, s 199

Police Act 1892, s 80

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms J Pinnington

Respondent : Ms M Georgevic

Solicitors:

Appellant : Lawton Gillon

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

"M" v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Brunskill & Anor v Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Co Ltd & Ors (1985) 62 ALR 53
Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
De Vries & Anor v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1
Harling (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 178 ALR 577
State Railway Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588

Case(s) also cited:

Pledge v Davey [2000] WASCA 20
Walsh v Law Society (NSW) (1999) 198 CLR 73

(Page 3)

1 HASLUCK J: This is an appeal against the whole of the decision of his Worship Mr Thobaven SM given in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 6 July 2001. The question is whether the learned Magistrate fell into error in reviewing the evidence…

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 Small v Evans

Details

AGLC: Small v Evans [2001] WASCA 343
Case: [2001] WASCA 343
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Small v Evans involved an appeal against a conviction under the Justices Act 1902. The dispute centred around the credibility of the principal prosecution witness and the evidence presented. The matter was heard and determined by the court of appeal, which reviewed the magistrate's decision to prefer the prosecution's evidence.

The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the magistrate had erred in assessing the credibility of the key witness and in accepting the prosecution's evidence. The court examined the magistrate's findings and whether they were open to the magistrate, given the evidence presented. The defence argued that the magistrate had overlooked certain factors that should have led to a different conclusion about the witness's credibility.

The court of appeal found that the magistrate's assessment of the witness's credibility was not in error. The evidence provided by the prosecution was deemed reliable and sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the magistrate's findings were well within the bounds of reasonable possibility, given the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.