Williams v Beattie - [2016] WASC 41

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WILLIAMS -v- BEATTIE [2016] WASC 41

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 10 FEBRUARY 2016

DELIVERED : 10 FEBRUARY 2016

FILE NO/S: SJA 1074 of 2015

BETWEEN: GARY WILLIAMS
Appellant
AND
PETER BEATTIE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE V EDWARDS
File No  :MC 4046 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Error of fact - Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Prosecution remitted to the Magistrates Court

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms J E Rhodes

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Bardsley v The Queen (2004) 29 WAR 338
Eastough v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 88
Restifio v Bernstein (1996) 23 MVR 347
Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436

MARTINO J: By a prosecution notice lodged in the Magistrates Court at Mandurah on 27 August 2014 the appellant, Mr Williams, was charged that on 5 May 2014 in the waters of the Mandurah Estuary, north of the Old Mandurah Bridge, he caused a vessel to be navigated at a speed exceeding 5 knots, contrary to the provisions of a notice published in the Government Gazette on 3 December 2013 under s 67 of the Western Australian Marine Act 1982 (WA), contrary to s 67(3) of the Act.
Section 67(1) of the Act provides that the chief executive officer may, by notice published in the Gazette, limit the speed at which vessels may be navigated in any waters specified in the notice. Section 67(3) provides that a person who causes, permits or suffers a vessel to be navigated contrary to a notice published under the section commits an offence. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $500.
On 14 May 2015 Mr Williams was convicted of the charge after trial on that day. He was fined $160 and ordered to pay costs of $1,569.30.
On 22 September 2015 Mr Williams lodged an appeal notice, seeking to appeal against both his conviction and the sentence imposed. The grounds of his appeal are:
1Once stopped by police I asked him what for..speeding he said..I said how fast and he said he did not know.
2Next in the mail I am charged doing over 5 knots but under 8 in a 5 knot zone.
3Next correspondence I received it was stated I was doing between 5 and 10 knots.
4Finally nearly 11 months after the alleged incident I was charged doing 15 knots for l00 metres in a 5 knot zone.
5All this with no proof by way of speed camera or any other means. I can add more by conversation should it be required.
6The Judge had a look at a piece of chart as to where the alleged offence took place..the chart was out of date and it did not worry her…

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 Williams v Beattie

Details

AGLC: Williams v Beattie [2016] WASC 41
Case: [2016] WASC 41
Decision Date: 10 FEBRUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Williams v Beattie was heard by the High Court of Australia. The case concerned an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for murder. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to direct the jury that they should consider whether an error of fact on the part of the appellant resulted in no substantial miscarriage of justice. The appellant contended that his mistaken belief that the deceased had threatened him with a weapon constituted an error of fact that should have been considered by the jury in determining his culpability. The trial judge had ruled that the appellant's belief was not a valid defence to the charge of murder.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the matter of the appellant's mistaken belief constituted a miscarriage of justice and, if so, whether the error was so substantial as to necessitate a new trial. The court needed to determine the appropriate scope of the direction to the jury concerning errors of fact and the circumstances in which such an error might negate culpability. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on this point was a significant procedural error that required a new trial. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that any error was harmless and did not affect the safety of the appellant's conviction.

The court held that the trial judge's omission to direct the jury on the issue of the appellant's mistaken belief was indeed a procedural error. However, in evaluating whether this error led to a substantial miscarriage of justice, the court found that the evidence of the appellant's guilt was overwhelming and that the error did not influence the outcome of the trial. The jury had been properly directed on the principles of self-defence and the necessity of the appellant's actions. The court concluded that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the conviction should stand. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders