Tey v Plotz
[2011] WASCA 194
•19 SEPTEMBER 2011
TEY -v- PLOTZ [2011] WASCA 194
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASCA 194 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:36/2011 | 28 JULY 2011 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA J | 19/09/11 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | CACR 36 of 2011 Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed CACR 37 of 2011 Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KOK YONG TEY MARTIN DANIEL PLOTZ |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeals against conviction and sentence Failing to comply with request to give police personal details Turns on own facts Criminal law Review of provisional decision Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), r 63 |
Case References: | Tey v Plotz [2010] WASC 163 Tey v Plotz [No 2] [2011] WASC 34 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : TEY -v- PLOTZ [2011] WASCA 194 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA J
- CACR 37 of 2011
- Appellant
AND
MARTIN DANIEL PLOTZ
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : JENKINS J
Citation : TEY -v- PLOTZ [No 2] [2011] WASC 34
File No : SJA 1139 of 2009, SJA 1033 of 2010
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeals against conviction and sentence - Failing to comply with request to give police personal details - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Criminal law - Review of provisional decision - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), r 63
Result:
CACR 36 of 2011
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
CACR 37 of 2011
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J R Ludlow
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Tey v Plotz [2010] WASC 163
Tey v Plotz [No 2] [2011] WASC 34
(Page 3)
1 McLURE P: I agree with Buss JA.
2 BUSS JA: On 20 November 2009, the appellant was convicted, after a trial in the Magistrates Court at Perth before Magistrate BA Lane, of failing to comply with a request to give police her personal details. She was fined $500.
3 The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against her conviction and sentence.
4 In her notices of appeal, the appellant named 'WA Police' as the respondent. In Tey v Plotz [2010] WASC 163, Jenkins J gave reasons for deciding that a police officer, Martin Daniel Plotz, should be substituted for 'WA Police' as the respondent. Her Honour's decision was provisional in character. Pursuant to r 63 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), the appellant requested a hearing of the provisional decision.
5 The appellant's appeals to the Supreme Court against her conviction and sentence, and her request for a hearing of the provisional decision, were heard by Jenkins J on 17 September 2010. On 16 February 2011, her Honour dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence, and confirmed the provisional decision. She published detailed written reasons for decision. See Tey v Plotz[No 2] [2011] WASC 34.
6 The appellant now appeals to this court against the decision of the primary judge to dismiss her appeals against conviction and sentence and to confirm the provisional decision.
CACR 36 of 2011 and CACR 37 of 2011
7 CACR 36 of 2011 relates to the appeal against conviction and the provisional decision. The appellant relies on eight proposed grounds of appeal.
8 CACR 37 of 2011 relates to the appeal against sentence and the provisional decision. The appellant relies on three proposed grounds of appeal.
9 The appellant's counsel has prepared detailed written submissions in support of the appeals. These submissions were incorporated in the appellant's case in each appeal, filed at the Court of Appeal office on 4 May 2011.
10 On 28 July 2011, this court heard oral submissions from the appellant's counsel in support of her applications for leave to appeal.
(Page 4)
The disposition of the appeals
11 I have read and considered the materials before Jenkins J. I have also read and considered the proposed grounds of appeal, the written submissions filed in support of each appeal and the primary judge's reasons for decision. Further, I have reflected on the oral submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant at the hearing.
12 In my opinion, none of the proposed grounds of appeal relied on by the appellant in each of the appeals has a reasonable prospect of success. I am of that opinion because, on my examination of the primary judge's reasons, her decision to dismiss the appeals against conviction and sentence and to confirm the provisional decision were correct, generally for the reasons she gave.
13 Leave to appeal should be refused in each of CACR 36 of 2011 and CACR 37 of 2011, and the appeals dismissed.
14 MAZZA J: I agree with Buss JA.
7
2
1