Ugle v Bailey - [2023] WASC 398

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   UGLE -v- BAILEY [2023] WASC 398
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   13 OCTOBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   20 OCTOBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1044 of 2023
BETWEEN:   ROGER BRETT UGLE
Appellant

AND

ADRIAN BAILEY
Respondent

FILE NO/S: SJA 1045 of 2023
BETWEEN: ROGER BRETT UGLE
Appellant

AND

ADRIAN BAILEY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1044 of 2023
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE GIBBS
File Number            :   PE 38417/2022 - PE 38421/22
For File No:   SJA 1045 of 2023
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE SULLIVAN
File Number            :   PE 44422/22 - PE 44427/22

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction of being subject to a supervision order under High Risk Serious Offenders Act, without reasonable excuse, contravened a requirement of the order - Appellant convicted after pleas of guilty - Whether miscarriage of justice demonstrated

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020

Result:

SJA 1044/2023
Extension of time in which to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
The appellant's convictions on charges PE 38418/2022 and PE 38420/2022 are set aside
The global fine in the amount of $1500 in respect to charges PE 38417/2022, PE 38418/2022, PE 38419/2022, PE 34820/2022 and PE 38421/2022 is set aside and in lieu thereof, a global fine in the amount of $600 is imposed in respect to charges PE 38417/2022, PE 38419/2022 and PE 38421/2022

SJA 1045/2023
Extension of time in which to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
The appellant's convictions on PE 44422/2022, PE 44424/2022 and PE 44426/2022 are set aside
The global fine in the amount of $1000 in respect to charges PE 44424/2022 and PE 44425/2022 is set aside and in lieu thereof, a fine of $300 is imposed in respect to charge PE 44425/2022
The global fine in the amount of $500 in respect to charges PE 44422/2022, PE 44423/2022, PE 44426/2022 and PE 44427/2022 is set aside and in lieu thereof, a global fine in the amount of $200 is imposed in respect to charges PE 44423/2022 and PE 44427/2022

Category: B

Representation:

SJA 1044 of 2023

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms F Sellers
Respondent	:	Ms F Negus

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid Commission
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

SJA 1045 of 2023

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms F Sellers
Respondent	:	Ms F Negus

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid Commission
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 510
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
The State of Western Australia v Ugle [2022] WASC 91
The State of Western Australia v Ugle [No 2] [2023] WASC 54
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129

MCGRATH J:

The appellant was convicted on his own plea of five convictions for contravening a…

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 Ugle v Bailey

Details

AGLC: Ugle v Bailey [2023] WASC 398
Case: [2023] WASC 398
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Ugle v Bailey involved the appellant, Roger Brett Ugle, contesting his convictions for contravening requirements of an interim supervision order under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA). The convictions were appealed on the basis that a miscarriage of justice had occurred because Ugle was not subject to an interim supervision order at the time of the alleged contravening conduct. The appeal was heard by McGrath J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, who agreed with Ugle's contention and quashed the convictions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant could be lawfully convicted of the offences in question given that the interim supervision order had expired before the alleged contraventions occurred. The court had to determine if there had been a miscarriage of justice, which would necessitate setting aside the convictions. The court's reasoning was based on the explicit terms of the interim supervision order, which specified a duration until 24 August 2022, after which the order lapsed. Since no further order was made to extend the supervision order, Ugle could not have been subject to it at the time of the alleged offences, and thus, he could not have lawfully been convicted of the charges. As a result, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the relevant convictions, and reduced the fines imposed by the Magistrates Court to account for the quashed convictions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Western Australia granted the appellant an extension of time to appeal, leave to appeal, and allowed the appeals. The convictions on certain charges were set aside, and the fines were adjusted to reflect the reduced number of convictions. The court's decision underscored the importance of the legal validity of the interim supervision order in determining the appellant's culpability for the offences.

Orders