Tallot v Matier - [2012] WASC 290

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: TALLOT -v- MATIER [2012] WASC 290

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 6 AUGUST 2012

DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2012

PUBLISHED : 13 AUGUST 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1047 of 2012

BETWEEN: AARON PETER TALLOT
Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER GRAEME MATIER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE E A WOODS
File No  :PE 16027 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Obstructing a public officer - Indictable offence - Whether capable of being dealt with under s 55 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 48, s 55, s 144

Result:

Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Remit to Magistrates Court for retrial

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Ebatarinja v Deland [1998] HCA 62; (1998) 194 CLR 444
Wilde v The Queen [1988] HCA 6; (1988) 164 CLR 365

HALL J: This is an appeal against conviction. On 6 August 2012 I allowed the appeal and said that reasons for my decision would be published in due course.
The appellant was charged that on 11 March 2012 he had obstructed a public officer in the performance of the officer's functions contrary to s 172(2) of the Criminal Code (WA). The alleged facts are not relevant to this appeal. The matter at issue relates entirely to the procedure for dealing with the charge that was followed in the Magistrates Court.
On 30 March 2012 the charge was listed for mention in the Perth Magistrates Court. On that occasion the appellant appeared but declined to answer to his name. His reasons for doing so were nonsensical and need not be repeated. However, having failed to answer to his name, the prosecutor submitted that the matter could be dealt with pursuant to s 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) on the next occasion. This required that a notice be issued to the appellant. The matter was then adjourned to 13 April 2012.
On 13 April 2012 the appellant appeared but again declined to answer to his name and gave the same spurious reasons for doing so. The magistrate then told the appellant that if he would not answer to his name he should move away from the bar table and that the matter would proceed without him. Her Honour then purported to proceed under s 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act to hear and determine the charge. She found the appellant guilty and imposed a fine of $400.
Section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits a Magistrates Court in certain circumstances to determine a charge and sentence an accused person in their absence. Section 55 provides as follows:
No appearance by accused and no plea of guilty
(1)This section applies if on a court date for a charge the prosecutor appears and the accused does not…

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 Tallot v Matier

Details

AGLC: Tallot v Matier [2012] WASC 290
Case: [2012] WASC 290
Decision Date: 13 AUGUST 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tallot v Matier is a case before the court concerning an offence of obstructing a public officer, an indictable offence under the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA). The defendant, Matier, has been charged with obstructing a police officer while the officer was performing their duties. The dispute revolves around whether this offence can be dealt with under section 55 of the Act, which pertains to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court for summary offences.

The legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the offence of obstructing a public officer, being an indictable offence, falls within the scope of section 55 of the Act. This section grants the Magistrates Court jurisdiction over summary offences but excludes indictable offences unless they are triable summarily by virtue of section 33 of the Act. The court needed to determine if the offence of obstructing a public officer could be considered a summary offence under section 33.

The court reasoned that section 33 of the Act provides that an indictable offence may be tried summarily if the accused elects to be tried summarily. This section enables the court to exercise its discretion in cases where the accused elects a summary trial. Given that the offence of obstructing a public officer is an indictable offence, the court concluded that it could be dealt with under section 55 if the accused chooses to be tried summarily. The court held that, upon the accused's election for a summary trial, the Magistrates Court would have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

The final outcome of the case was that the Magistrates Court has jurisdiction over the offence of obstructing a public officer, provided the accused elects to be tried summarily. The court's decision affirms the applicability of section 55 in such cases, ensuring that the accused's choice to opt for a summary trial allows the court to exercise its jurisdiction.

Orders