Webb v Tang

This is an appeal against conviction from the Magistrates Court. The appellant was convicted of one charge that, being a teacher, he failed to report a belief on reasonable grounds that a child had been the subject of sexual abuse, contrary to s 124B of the Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA). The circumstances giving rise to the conviction were that the appellant, while on a school rugby trip to Japan, was told by one of the students that he had been sexually abused by a group of other students. The appellant did not report the incident. The issue at trial was whether the appellant believed that what the student had told him had occurred. The learned magistrate was satisfied that the only reasonable inference was that the appellant had formed the requisite belief and that it was on reasonable grounds. The appellant appeals on two grounds: (a) that the verdict was unsafe and unsupported by the evidence, occasioning a miscarriage of justice; and (b) that the learned magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for his decision. For the reasons that follow, I would refuse leave to appeal in relation to each ground and dismiss the appeal. As the appellant accepted at the hearing of the appeal, ground 1, which contends that the verdict of guilty was unsafe and unsatisfactory, requires that I conduct a real review of all of the evidence to determine whether it was open to the learned magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant of the offence charged. The appellant's challenge to the learned magistrate's finding that he believed that the student had been the subject of sexual abuse, proved to be somewhat elusive. The appellant's submissions shifted between two distinct senses in which that finding might be challenged: (a) first, it might be understood as a challenge to the finding that what the student reported to the appellant had happened to him was a report of sexual abuse; or (b) alternatively, it might be understood as a challenge to the finding that the appellant believed the student when he reported what had happened to him. The appellant's submissions, however, did not challenge the finding that the student did tell the appellant that his anus had been penetrated with a carrot, or words to that effect. In any event, that finding was open to the learned magistrate and, in my view, it was correct. The appellant's submissions did, however, challenge the finding that the appellant believed what the student had told him. The appellant submitted that it was a reasonable inference that the appellant simply did not believe the student at all. I am not satisfied that ground 1 has a reasonable prospect of success. Leave to appeal on that ground must be refused. Ground 2 contends that the learned magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for his decision, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. Little attention was given to this ground of appeal at the hearing before me. The focus of the appellant's submissions was on ground 1. In any event, I am not satisfied that the learned magistrate's reasons for decision did fail to adequately set out the basis for his Honour's decision to convict the appellant. The applicable principles in assessing the adequacy of reasons include the following. Reasons for decision need not be lengthy or elaborate. The reasons should disclose the intellectual process that led to the decision in sufficient detail and with sufficient certainty to enable a litigant to know why they were unsuccessful and to enable an appeal court to determine whether the decision involved appellable error. In determining the adequacy of the reasons, the reasons must be read as a whole, and, if necessary, considered in the context of the evidence, to determine if they give the sense of what was intended in a way that achieves their required purpose and function. In the present case, I am not satisfied that the learned magistrate's reasons failed to set out the intellectual process that led to his decision. I am not satisfied that ground 2 has a reasonable prospect of success. Leave to appeal on ground 2 must be refused. Leave to appeal is refused on both grounds of appeal. The appeal must be dismissed.