STOCK -v- BENNETT [2000] WASCA 268

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 268
Case No:	SJA:1097/2000	Heard:	8 SEPTEMBER 2000
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	21/09/00
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL STOCK IAN ALBERT BENNETT
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal Convictions for breach of restraining order Whether findings of Magistrate should be set aside Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Grove v Gage [2000] WASCA 70 Lurssen v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950015; 20 January 1995 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : STOCK -v- BENNETT [2000] WASCA 268 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 8 SEPTEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1097 of 2000 BETWEEN : MICHAEL STOCK

Appellant

AND

IAN ALBERT BENNETT

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Convictions for breach of restraining order - Whether findings of Magistrate should be set aside - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr R Bathurst

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Grove v Gage [2000] WASCA 70
Lurssen v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950015; 20 January 1995
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The appellant was convicted by Mr T McIntyre SM in the Court of Petty Sessions at Armadale on 1 March 2000 on two charges of breaching a violence restraining order. One charge alleged that the appellant had attended at a residence at 240 Steich Avenue, Armadale on 2 December 1999 in breach of the violence restraining order and the other alleged that he had attended again at that address on 18 December 1999 in further breach of the order.

2 In relation to the first charge the former de facto wife of the appellant, one Marie Baker, testified that on 2 December 1999 the appellant had attended at her place of residence in order to serve a court order. According to her evidence had pushed paperwork through the flyscreen door which was in breach of the restraining order which prevented him from entering those premises. The appellant testified in his defence that he had never attended as alleged and put to Ms Baker that her testimony was a complete fabrication. In essence the appellant was contesting the day upon which he had been at the residence, not that he had not been there at all.

3 The learned Magistrate found as a fact that Ms Baker was a truthful witness and that the appellant had attended at her place of residence on the day in question to serve a document in breach of the violence restraining order.

4 In reasons for decision the learned Magistrate described both the appellant and his…

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 Stock v Bennett

Details

AGLC: Stock v Bennett [2000] WASCA 268
Case: [2000] WASCA 268
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stock v Bennett, the appellant, Stock, appealed against his conviction for breaches of restraining orders. The lower court found Stock guilty of breaching the restraining orders, leading to his imprisonment. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the findings of the Magistrate should be set aside and whether the appeal was based on the facts of the case.

The court found that the Magistrate's decision was based on the facts of the case, and there was no error in the process that led to Stock's conviction. The court held that the Magistrate had correctly considered the evidence and made the findings based on the facts presented. The court also found that Stock's appeal was not based on the facts of the case but rather on the interpretation of the law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and Stock's convictions were upheld. The court's decision was final, and the appeal was dismissed with no orders made.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.