SMART -v- ALBUQUERQUE [2011] WASCA 231
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASCA 231 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:192/2010 | 28 JULY 2011 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA J | 26/10/11 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SMART -v- ALBUQUERQUE [2011] WASCA 231 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA J
- Appellant
AND
SANJEEV ANTHONY ALBUQUERQUE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McKECHNIE J
Citation : SMART -v- ALBUQUERQUE [2010] WASC 323
File No : SJA 1063 of 2010
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Leave to appeal against conviction - Assaulting a public officer - Appellant spat in the face of a prison officer - Whether judge hearing appeal
(Page 2)
should have disqualified himself due to actual or apprehended bias - Whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory - Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 318(1)(d)
Result:
Leave refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Anderson v Davis [2009] WASC 38; (2009) 193 A Crim R 272
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 273 ALR 429
Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 110
Harvey v Matthews [1999] WASCA 58
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Libke v The Queen…
Continue reading Smart v Albuquerque
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Smart v Albuquerque [2011] WASCA 231
- Case
- [2011] WASCA 231
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Smart v Albuquerque, the appellant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for assaulting a public officer. The appellant had spat in the face of a prison officer. The legal issue before the court was whether the judge hearing the appeal should have disqualified himself due to actual or apprehended bias, whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, and whether a miscarriage of justice occurred. The court held that there was no actual or apprehended bias, and the verdict was both safe and satisfactory. The appellant's argument that the judge should have disqualified himself was rejected, as the court found that there was no evidence to support a finding of actual or apprehended bias. Furthermore, the court found that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave refused
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.