THAKRAR -v- HULL [2013] WASC 447

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 447
Case No:	SJA:1042/2013	Heard:	16 AUGUST & 23 SEPTEMBER 2013
Coram:	CORBOY J	Delivered:	16/12/13
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ARVIND KUMAR JAGJIVAN THAKRAR ANDREA KAREN HULL
Catchwords:	Criminal law Whether magistrate erred in fact in finding appellant guilty of fraudulently causing a detriment Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(1), s 39(2) Criminal Code (WA), s 409(1)
Case References:	Bolitho v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 102; (2007) 34 WAR 215 Brown v Deveroux [2008] WASC 299; (2008) 192 A Crim R 190 Gipp v The Queen [1998] HCA 21; (1998) 194 CLR 106 Graham-Helwig v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 127; (2005) 30 WAR 221 Hunt v Callaghan [2011] WASC 10 Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728 The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : THAKRAR -v- HULL [2013] WASC 447 CORAM : CORBOY J HEARD : 16 AUGUST & 23 SEPTEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1042 of 2013 BETWEEN : ARVIND KUMAR JAGJIVAN THAKRAR

Appellant

AND

ANDREA KAREN HULL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY

File No : PE 32733 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Whether magistrate erred in fact in finding appellant guilty of fraudulently causing a detriment - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(1), s 39(2)

Criminal Code (WA), s 409(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms S Markham

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Bolitho v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 102; (2007) 34 WAR 215
Brown v Deveroux [2008] WASC 299; (2008) 192 A Crim R 190
Gipp v The Queen [1998] HCA 21; (1998) 194 CLR 106
Graham-Helwig v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 127; (2005) 30 WAR 221
Hunt v Callaghan [2011] WASC 10
Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728
The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219

CORBOY J

The appeal and the result

1 The appellant was charged that between 1 March 2010 and 8 April 2010 at Perth, with intent to defraud by deceit, he caused a detriment, namely $10,000, to…

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 Thakrar v Hull

Details

AGLC: THAKRAR -v- HULL [2013] WASC 447
Case: [2013] WASC 447
Decision Date: 16 DECEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Thakrar v Hull, the appellant, Thakrar, was convicted by a magistrate for fraudulently causing a detriment to the respondent, Hull. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the magistrate had erred in fact by wrongly finding him guilty. The case was brought before the court for an appeal, with Thakrar seeking to overturn his conviction.

The court was required to decide whether the magistrate had indeed erred in fact when finding the appellant guilty. This involved an examination of the evidence presented during the trial and whether the magistrate had correctly applied the law in reaching the conclusion. The primary issue was whether the magistrate's findings were open to the court on the evidence presented, and if the decision was one that a reasonably properly directed mind could make.

The court found that the magistrate had not erred in fact and that the findings were open to the court on the evidence presented. The court held that the magistrate had correctly applied the law in reaching the conclusion and that the decision was one that a reasonably properly directed mind could make. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The court granted leave to appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal on the basis that the magistrate's findings were not in error.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

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.