STARLING -v- EDMUNDS [2012] WASC 14

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 14
Case No:	SJA:1016/2011	Heard:	27 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	13/01/12
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Convictions quashed New trial ordered
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KARL JAMES STARLING MATTHEW EDMUNDS
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Courts and judges Extraneous material taken into account
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

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

(Page 2)

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

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J

How this matter comes for trial

1 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.

2 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

3 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).

4 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.

5 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…

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
Decision Date: 13 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Starling, was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria of armed robbery. The conviction was based on evidence that included an extraneous remark made by a witness during the trial. Starling appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, arguing that the judge had erred by taking into account this extraneous material. The respondent, Edmunds, was the state prosecutor and defended the conviction, arguing that any error was harmless.

The key legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge's consideration of extraneous material amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court considered whether the extraneous material influenced the trial judge's decision and, if so, whether it was so significant that it affected the fairness of the trial. The court also examined whether the error was capable of being described as harmless.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed taken into account extraneous material, which was not part of the admissible evidence. This material had the potential to influence the judge's decision. The court concluded that the error was not harmless because it was not possible to say with any degree of confidence that the extraneous material did not affect the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed. A new trial was ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Convictions quashed

New trial ordered

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.