STASKOS -v- JOHNSON [2014] WASC 137

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 137
Case No:	SJA:1115/2013	Heard:	26 MARCH 2014
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	16/04/14
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted on each ground Appeal allowed Conviction set aside Verdict of acquittal substituted for finding of guilty
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIELL BROOK STASKOS DAVID COLIN JOHNSON
Catchwords:	Appeal Conviction of serious assault Police officer not performing a function of office or employment at time of assault Arrest unlawful Appellant denied procedural fairness
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 10A, s 10B, s 318 Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), pt 12
Case References:	Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573 Cumberbatch v The Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin) Johnstone v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 70 Mackenzie v The Queen [2004] WASCA 146 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135 Michaels v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 117 Norton v The Queen [2001] WASCA 207 State of New South Wales v Delly (2007) 70 NSWLR 125

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : STASKOS -v- JOHNSON [2014] WASC 137 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 26 MARCH 2014 DELIVERED : 16 APRIL 2014 FILE NO/S : SJA 1115 of 2013 BETWEEN : DANIELL BROOK STASKOS

Appellant

AND

DAVID COLIN JOHNSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY

File No : FR 1198 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal - Conviction of serious assault - Police officer not performing a function of office or employment at time of assault - Arrest unlawful - Appellant denied procedural fairness

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 10A, s 10B, s 318

Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), pt 12

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on each ground

Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Verdict of acquittal substituted for finding of guilty

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A G Elliott

Respondent : Ms A C Longden

Solicitors:

Appellant : Shadgett Legal

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
Cumberbatch v The Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin)
Johnstone v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 70
Mackenzie v The Queen [2004] WASCA 146
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135
Michaels v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 117
Norton v The Queen [2001] WASCA 207
State of New South Wales v Delly (2007) 70 NSWLR 125

1 LE MIERE J: In the early hours of a Sunday morning the appellant and her ex-boyfriend, Kevin Gourlay, were behaving in a disorderly fashion. A number of police officers, including Senior Constable Robinson, spoke to the appellant and Mr Gourlay. During a struggle that followed the appellant bit Senior Constable Robinson and struck her to the face. The appellant was arrested and charged with three offences:

(a) behaving in a disorderly manner…

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 Staskos v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Staskos v Johnson [2014] WASC 137
Case: [2014] WASC 137
Decision Date: 16 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellant, Staskos, against his conviction for serious assault of the respondent, Johnson. The dispute arose from an incident where the appellant, while not on duty, assaulted the respondent, who was a police officer. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the police officer was not performing a function of his office or employment at the time of the assault, rendering the arrest unlawful and the appellant being denied procedural fairness. Consequently, the conviction was challenged on these grounds.

The legal issues before the court were whether the police officer was performing a function of his office or employment at the time of the assault and whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness as a result of the unlawful arrest. The court needed to determine if the police officer's status at the time of the incident impacted the validity of the arrest and if this impacted the appellant's right to procedural fairness. The court had to examine the nature of the police officer's role and whether it extended to situations outside of official duties, as well as the implications for the appellant's legal rights.

The court found that the police officer was not performing a function of his office or employment at the time of the assault. As a result, the arrest was deemed unlawful. The court held that the appellant was denied procedural fairness due to the unlawful arrest. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the verdict of acquittal was substituted for the finding of guilty. The court granted leave to appeal on each ground and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and substituting the verdict of acquittal. This decision emphasised the importance of the police officer's status at the time of the incident and the impact on the appellant's procedural fairness.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted on each ground

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside

Verdict of acquittal substituted for finding of guilty

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.