STEARMAN -v- TAYLOR [2014] WASC 247
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 247 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1134/2013 | 4 APRIL 2014 | |
| Coram: | CORBOY J | 15/07/14 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
AMY JEAN TAYLOR
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE P A ROTH
File No : NO 332 of 2013, NO 333 of 2013, NO 334 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appellant claimed to be entitled to a trial by jury on a charge for a simple offence in a court of summary jurisdiction - Leave to appeal refused as no reasonable prospects of success
Legislation:
Commonwealth Constitution, s 80
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA), s 16(6)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55, s 71
Road Traffic Act1974 (WA), s 49(1)(a), s 49(3)(c), s 53(2A)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr J Berson
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
CBFC Ltd v Chairtopoulos [2009] SASC 30
Essenberg v R [2002] QCA 4
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260
Glew v White [2012] WASC 100
Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138
Jackson v Western Australia Police [2014] WASC 72
Continue reading Stearman v Taylor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stearman v Taylor [2014] WASC 247
- Case
- [2014] WASC 247
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Stearman v Taylor involved the appellant seeking to appeal against his conviction in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted of a simple offence and argued that he was entitled to a trial by jury. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider the refusal of the trial by jury application and the conviction itself. The appellant contended that the Magistrates' Court erred in law by not granting him a trial by jury, as the charge was a simple offence that could be heard by a jury in a court of summary jurisdiction. The legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the Magistrates' Court's refusal to grant the appellant a trial by jury was a correct exercise of discretion.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's argument was without merit, as the right to a jury trial does not extend to simple offences in a court of summary jurisdiction. The court held that the trial by jury provision in section 24 of the Constitution only applies to serious indictable offences. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that there were any reasonable prospects of success on the appeal. The court considered the evidence, submissions, and the nature of the offence, and concluded that there was no basis for allowing the appeal.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the appellant had not made out a case that satisfied the threshold for an appeal, and that there were no grounds for the appeal to proceed. The court did not find any arguable error of law or fact that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The decision of the Magistrates' Court was affirmed, and the conviction of the appellant remained in place.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's argument was without merit, as the right to a jury trial does not extend to simple offences in a court of summary jurisdiction. The court held that the trial by jury provision in section 24 of the Constitution only applies to serious indictable offences. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that there were any reasonable prospects of success on the appeal. The court considered the evidence, submissions, and the nature of the offence, and concluded that there was no basis for allowing the appeal.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the appellant had not made out a case that satisfied the threshold for an appeal, and that there were no grounds for the appeal to proceed. The court did not find any arguable error of law or fact that warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The decision of the Magistrates' Court was affirmed, and the conviction of the appellant remained in place.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal 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.