Staveley v Rowe - [2010] WASC 35

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: STAVELEY -v- ROWE [2010] WASC 35

CORAM: SIMMONDS J

HEARD: 18 JANUARY 2010

DELIVERED : 24 FEBRUARY 2010

FILE NO/S: SJA 1130 of 2009

BETWEEN: CHARLES GORDON STAVELEY
Appellant
AND
TODD COLIN ROWE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE E A WOODS
File No  :PE 52804 of 2007, PE 52805 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against decision made without jurisdiction - Convictions and sentence in the Magistrates Court for offences within the exclusive jurisdiction of Children's Court of Western Australia - Saving provision in Criminal Procedure Act 2004 s 169 - Whether power in s 169 to make order setting aside the convictions and sentence and sending the prosecutions to the Children's Court to be dealt with should be exercised - Order made

Criminal law and procedure - Power on appeal under Criminal Appeals Act 2004 s 7 to make orders under Criminal Procedure Act 2004 s 169

Legislation:

Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988 (WA), s 3, s 19, s 19B, s 19C, s 19D
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 7, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 14
Criminal Code (WA), s 5, s 401, s 575, s 576,
Criminal Law and Evidence Amendment Act 2008 (WA), s 28
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 169
Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 50B, s 55

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave granted
Appeal allowed
Prosecutions sent to Children's Court to be dealt with

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A J Robson
Respondent: Mr A E H Putt

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Adlem v The Queen [1999] WASCA 1; (1999) 20 WAR 419
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
The State of Western Australia v MPD [2008] WADC 98

SIMMONDS J:

Introduction

This appeal is about the application of the former provision of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (the CP Act) concerning courts dealing with charges outside their jurisdiction. There is no authority on that provision, or indeed on its successor, the current provision of the CP Act, which counsel or I have been able to find, save for a decision of the District Court, to which I will briefly return.
The application of that provision of the CP Act arises out of a prosecution in the Magistrates Court of a 23‑year‑old man who was 16 at the time of the alleged offending, and who thus ought to have been dealt with on the relevant charges in the Children's Court of Western Australia, at least initially.
I first set out the background to the appeal, before considering its basis, the relevant law and its application.

Background

Prosecution Notice 52804/07 dated 17 September 2007 charged the appellant, with the offence of burglary and commit…

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 Staveley v Rowe

Details

AGLC: Staveley v Rowe [2010] WASC 35
Case: [2010] WASC 35
Decision Date: 24 FEBRUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Staveley v Rowe, the appellant, Staveley, appealed against his convictions and sentence in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia for offences that fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Children's Court of Western Australia. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the power under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 should be exercised to set aside the convictions and sentence, and to direct that the prosecutions be sent to the Children's Court for appropriate handling. This decision was based on the premise that the original proceedings in the Magistrates Court were conducted without jurisdiction.

The court considered whether it was appropriate to exercise the power granted by section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004, which allows for an order to be made setting aside convictions and sentences when they are found to have been made without jurisdiction. The court also evaluated whether such an order should be made under the authority of section 7 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004, which permits the Court of Appeal to make orders under the Criminal Procedure Act 2004. The court found that given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Children's Court for the matters in question, the Magistrates Court had acted without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court decided to exercise its power under section 169 to set aside the convictions and sentence, and to direct that the prosecutions be transferred to the Children's Court.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal against the convictions and sentence should be upheld. The convictions and sentence rendered by the Magistrates Court were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the Children's Court for further proceedings in accordance with the appropriate jurisdiction. The court's decision underscores the importance of jurisdictional compliance in criminal proceedings and the role of appellate courts in correcting jurisdictional errors.

Orders