Starling v Edmunds - [2012] WASC 14 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: STARLING -v- EDMUNDS [2012] WASC 14

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 27 OCTOBER 2011

DELIVERED : 13 JANUARY 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1016 of 2011

BETWEEN: KARL JAMES STARLING
Appellant
AND
MATTHEW EDMUNDS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE JONES
File No  :FR 4982 of 2010, FR 4983 of 2010, FR 4984 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Courts and judges - Extraneous material taken into account

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Convictions quashed
New trial ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms M M In De Braekt
Respondent: Mr M Seaman

Solicitors:

Appellant: Megan In De Braekt
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Nil

McKECHNIE J:

How this matter comes for trial

On 31 March 2010 the appellant came into contact with police outside a Fremantle hotel. As a result, he was charged with assaulting Anthony David Whittaker, a public officer then performing a function of his office. When requested by Matthew Edmunds, a police officer, to supply personal details, namely, name and address, refused to do so, and obstructed Matthew Edmunds, a public officer, in the performance of the officer's function.
After a one‑day trial on 29 November 2010, the magistrate reserved his decision. On 9 December 2010, the magistrate delivered reasons convicting the appellant. The appellant seeks leave to appeal on ten grounds.

A note on procedure

The court's practice direction on outlines of submissions state:
The outline of submissions is to be in point or summary form, rather than being a complete exposition of the contentions advanced. It should not normally exceed five pages in length in the case of an interlocutory hearing, 10 pages in the case of a trial and 20 pages in the Court of Appeal (2.1 8).
The submissions prepared by Ms in de Braekt were 41 pages long and consisted of 257 numbered paragraphs. The respondent's submissions complied with the Practice Direction and numbered five pages.
The appeal was heard on 27 October 2011. It was a very short hearing. After some minor procedural matters wherein Ms in de Braekt enquired what I had read (which was everything) she said:
[The appeal] relies on 10 grounds of appeal, although depending on how your Honour views the first few grounds of appeal, some of the others, especially the first one, may fall away as a result of that. I won't repeat the submissions that are provided there but perhaps I will respond to my learned friend's remarks. Thanks you.
Mr Seaman said:
I stand on my written submissions at the moment, your Honour.
I said:
Very well. There appears to be nothing to respond to, Ms in de Braekt. I will reserve my decision.
Subsequently, my Associate was contacted by Ms in de Braekt who later sent an email:
I respectfully request leave from the court, to file, & serve a very brief, further written outline…

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 Starling v Edmunds

Details

AGLC: Starling v Edmunds [2012] WASC 14
Case: [2012] WASC 14 (S)
Decision Date: 13 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Starling v Edmunds arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland where the respondent, Starling, appealed against a conviction for drug trafficking. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had erred in considering extraneous material that was not presented in evidence during the trial. The appellant argued that the judge's reliance on information outside the formal evidence constituted a breach of the legal principle that only material presented in court can be used in reaching a verdict. The appeal hinged on whether this breach was so significant that it rendered the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court was tasked with determining whether the extraneous material influenced the trial judge's decision-making process to such an extent that it compromised the fairness of the trial. This required an analysis of the extent and nature of the extraneous material, as well as its potential impact on the judge's assessment of the evidence. The court had to balance the principle of judicial impartiality with the practical realities of judicial decision-making, considering whether the extraneous material could have contributed to an unjust outcome.

In its reasoning, the court found that the trial judge had indeed erred by considering extraneous material that was not part of the formal evidence. This error was significant because it potentially influenced the judge's assessment of the case. The court held that such a breach of procedural fairness was serious enough to warrant a new trial. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that the appellant received a fair hearing based solely on the evidence presented in court.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the conviction and the direction for a retrial of the case. The court emphasised the importance of procedural integrity in criminal trials and underscored the need for judges to strictly adhere to the evidence presented during the trial. The decision serves as a reminder of the critical role that adherence to legal principles plays in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders