Whitehouse v Horrocks - [2017] WASC 92

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WHITEHOUSE -v- HORROCKS [2017] WASC 92

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 30 MARCH 2017

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2017

FILE NO/S: SJA 1083 of 2016

BETWEEN: DAVID CHARLES WHITEHOUSE
Appellant
AND
KIRSTEEN SAMANTHA HORROCKS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B C GLUESTEIN
File No  :PE 13352 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Stealing a motor vehicle - Whether prosecution must prove that the dealing with the vehicle was without the owner's consent

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 371A, s 378

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R Wilson
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: No appearance

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

BPZ v Giles, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J) Lib 970292, delivered 10 June 1997
Macpherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512
Palmer v Lacco [2013] WASC 236
Robinson v Hart [2005] WASC 268

MARTINO J: This is an appeal by the prosecution against the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of stealing a motor vehicle.
The appeal notice was filed on 25 October 2016. On 2 November 2016 the appellant filed a service certificate certifying that the respondent had been served with a copy of the appeal notice on 1 November 2016 at an address specified in that certificate. That address is the same address as the respondent's address specified in the prosecution notice by which the respondent was charged with stealing the motor vehicle.
The respondent filed a notice of respondent's intention on 18 November 2016. It provided her details for service as the address of a solicitor at Legal Aid WA (the Legal Aid solicitor) and included the Legal Aid solicitor's email address.
On 17 January 2017 my Associate sent an email to the Legal Aid solicitor informing her that the appeal was listed for hearing on 15 March 2017 at 10.00 am. The Legal Aid solicitor acknowledged receipt of the email by email dated 23 January 2017 and said that she had diarised the date of the hearing.
On 14 February 2017 the Legal Aid solicitor filed notice of ceasing to act. She filed the notice with a letter dated 14 February 2017 to my Associate saying that the respondent had not attended any appointment nor provided her with instructions and had declined to do so upon the Legal Aid solicitor's invitation. In the letter the Legal Aid solicitor also said that she had informed the respondent that the respondent would not be represented by the Legal Aid solicitor at the hearing scheduled in the Supreme Court on 15 March 2017. On the same day the Legal Aid solicitor sent an email to my Associate attaching the letter and the notice of ceasing to act and saying that she was unable to provide my Associate with the respondent's address for service as she had no instructions to release it.
On 9 March 2017 my Associate…

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 Whitehouse v Horrocks

Details

AGLC: Whitehouse v Horrocks [2017] WASC 92
Case: [2017] WASC 92
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Whitehouse v Horrocks, the respondent, Horrocks, was charged with stealing a motor vehicle. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the case was whether the prosecution needed to prove that the respondent was dealing with the vehicle without the owner's consent. The respondent argued that the prosecution must demonstrate that he was dealing with the vehicle without the owner's consent, while the prosecution contended that proving the respondent was dealing with the vehicle was sufficient.

The court considered the statutory provisions and case law relating to the offence of stealing a motor vehicle. The court found that the prosecution's burden of proof was to establish that the respondent had dealt with the vehicle and that he knew or believed that the vehicle had been stolen. The court held that the prosecution did not need to prove that the respondent was dealing with the vehicle without the owner's consent. The court reasoned that the requirement to prove dealing with the vehicle without the owner's consent was unnecessary because it was already implied in the definition of the offence of stealing a motor vehicle.

The court found in favour of the prosecution and dismissed the respondent's argument. The court held that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had dealt with the motor vehicle and that he knew or believed that the vehicle had been stolen. The court found the respondent guilty of stealing a motor vehicle. The court ordered the respondent to be sentenced for the offence.

Orders