Watson v Vos - [2019] WASC 327

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   WATSON -v- VOS [2019] WASC 327
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   6 SEPTEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   6 SEPTEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1008 of 2019
BETWEEN:   SUSAN WATSON
Appellant
AND
GRAHAM PETER VOS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE POTTER
File Number             :   JO 7034 OF 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Whether magistrate erred in relying on inadmissible opinion - Whether inference as to age of damage was available from the evidence relied on - Whether to remit matter to Magistrates Court or enter judgment of acquittal

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused on grounds 1, 2 and 3
Leave to appeal allowed on ground 4
Appeal allowed
Judgment of acquittal entered

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr T F Percy QC & Ms S Nigam
Respondent	:	Mr J M Carroll

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Nigams Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

DPP (Nauru) v Fowler [1984] HCA 48; (1984) 154 CLR 627
Gibson v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 141; (2017) 51 WAR 199
R v Anderson (1991) 53 A Crim R 421
R v Taufahema [2007] HCA 11; (2007) 228 CLR 232

HALL J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 6 September 2019 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The appellant Susan Watson was convicted on a charge of unlawful damage after a trial in the Magistrates Court. The damage in question was a scratch to the wing mirror of her neighbour's car. The value of that damage was estimated to be $100. The appellant seeks leave to appeal against her conviction.
The above introduction is enough to convey that a relatively trivial matter has consumed a disproportionate amount of public resources, being the resources of the police, the Magistrates Court, and now the Supreme Court. That is extremely regrettable and has some significance in how this case should be disposed of.
The appeal is brought on grounds that allege that the learned magistrate fell into error by drawing inferences that were not open. The respondent concedes that an error occurred and that the appeal should be allowed. The real issue is whether, notwithstanding the error, it was open to convict the appellant on the evidence. If so, there is then a question of whether the case should be sent back to the Magistrates Court. I will return to those issues after setting out the evidence, the grounds of appeal and the merits of those grounds.

Prosecution Case

The prosecution case was that the offence occurred in the context of a long-running dispute between the appellant and her neighbours Ronald and Kerry‑Leigh Hapgood-Strickland. They occupy adjacent units which are part of a strata development. There is an area of common property shared by the two units. Due to past incidents, Mr and Mrs Hapgood-Strickland have installed CCTV cameras on their property, which cover an…

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 Watson v Vos

Details

AGLC: Watson v Vos [2019] WASC 327
Case: [2019] WASC 327
Decision Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Watson versus Vos, the appellant, Mr Watson, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute arose from an incident where Mr Watson allegedly assaulted a person, causing injury. The matter was heard and determined by the Magistrates Court, and subsequently, the appeal was brought before the higher court.

The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the magistrate erred in considering inadmissible opinion evidence, whether the inference as to the age of the injury was available based on the evidence presented, and the appropriate course of action following the appeal - whether to remit the matter back to the Magistrates Court or to enter a judgment of acquittal. The appellant argued that the magistrate had made an error in admitting certain evidence and that the inference as to the age of the injury was not properly supported.

The court examined the grounds of appeal and found that the first three grounds were without merit. However, with respect to the fourth ground, the court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in relying on inadmissible opinion evidence. The court further determined that the inference as to the age of the injury was not adequately supported by the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the fourth ground, and the court entered a judgment of acquittal for the appellant.

As a result of the appeal being allowed on the fourth ground, the court granted the appellant's appeal and entered a judgment of acquittal. Leave to appeal was refused on the first, second, and third grounds, while it was allowed on the fourth ground.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused on grounds 1, 2 and 3

Leave to appeal allowed on ground 4

Appeal allowed

Judgment of acquittal entered

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.