WALDOCK -v- TAYLOR [2003] WASCA 43

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 43
Case No:	SJA:1008/2003	Heard:	25 FEBRUARY 2003
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	4/03/03
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications granted, Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal granted, Leave to appeal granted
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	CHAD JASON WALDOCK KEVIN TAYLOR
Catchwords:	Appeal Justices Act 1902 (WA) Application for extension of time and leave to appeal Delay of 31/2 years Exceptional circumstances Failure of Magistrate to make spent conviction order Applicant refused employment Whether miscarriage of justice would remain uncorrected if extension not granted Consideration of merits of proposed appeal Appeal Justices Act 1902 (WA) Sentence Grounds of appeal "Some other reason sufficient to justify a review of the decision" Whether appellant must show error
Legislation:	Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 186 Sentencing Act 1998 (WA), s 47
Case References:	Lancaster v The Queen [1989] WAR 83 Stafford v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 4154; 28 May 1981 Tognini (2000) 109 A Crim R 411 Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65 Boomalli Limited v Hake [1985] WAR 7 Di Camillo v Wilcox [1964] WAR 44 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195 Jackamarra v Krackouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 Secretary for the Home Department; Ex parte Mehta [1975] 1 WLR 1087 Slater v Marshall [1965] WAR 222

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : WALDOCK -v- TAYLOR [2003] WASCA 43 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 25 FEBRUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 4 MARCH 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1008 of 2003 BETWEEN : CHAD JASON WALDOCK

Appellant

AND

KEVIN TAYLOR

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Application for extension of time and leave to appeal - Delay of 31/2 years - Exceptional circumstances - Failure of Magistrate to make spent conviction order - Applicant refused employment - Whether miscarriage of justice would remain uncorrected if extension not granted - Consideration of merits of proposed appeal

Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Sentence - Grounds of appeal - "Some other reason sufficient to justify a review of the decision" - Whether appellant must show error

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 186

Sentencing Act 1998 (WA), s 47

(Page 2)

Result:

Applications granted

Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M C Owens

Respondent : Ms C Ide

Solicitors:

Appellant : Max Owens & Co

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Lancaster v The Queen [1989] WAR 83
Stafford v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 4154; 28 May 1981
Tognini (2000) 109 A Crim R 411

Case(s) also cited:

Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65
Boomalli Limited v Hake [1985] WAR 7
Di Camillo v Wilcox [1964]…

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 Waldock v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Waldock v Taylor [2003] WASCA 43
Case: [2003] WASCA 43
Decision Date: 4 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Waldock v Taylor, the appellant, Waldock, sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against the refusal of the respondent, Taylor, to grant a spent conviction order. The primary dispute revolved around the appellant's argument that a significant delay in the proceedings should be excused due to exceptional circumstances, specifically the failure of the magistrate to make the spent conviction order. This oversight allegedly led to the appellant being refused employment, thereby constituting a miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with determining whether the exceptional circumstances were sufficient to warrant an extension of time for the appeal, and if the merits of the appeal would justify the grant of leave.

The court considered the grounds for the appeal, focusing on whether a "some other reason sufficient to justify a review of the decision" existed, as required under the Justices Act 1902 (WA). The court noted that the appellant had not demonstrated a legal error by the magistrate but argued that the failure to correct the miscarriage of justice was a compelling reason to allow the appeal. The court found that the exceptional circumstances, including the significant delay and the resultant employment difficulties, provided a strong basis for granting the extension and leave to appeal. The court reasoned that if the extension was not granted, the miscarriage of justice would remain uncorrected, which was a sufficient ground to permit the appeal.

The reasoning led the court to conclude that the appellant had presented a compelling case for the extension of time and the grant of leave to appeal. The court granted both the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal. The final orders reflected the court's decision to allow the appeal process to proceed, providing Waldock with the opportunity to challenge the magistrate's refusal to make the spent conviction order. This decision underscored the importance of correcting miscarriages of justice, even in the absence of a clear legal error, when exceptional circumstances are present.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications granted, Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal granted, Leave to appeal granted

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.