Wilson v Graham - [2007] WASC 293

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: WILSON -v- GRAHAM [2007] WASC 293

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 19 NOVEMBER 2007

DELIVERED : 19 NOVEMBER 2007

FILE NO/S: SJA 1063 of 2007

BETWEEN: ANTHONY ROBERT WILSON
Appellant
AND
NATALIE ANNE GRAHAM
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P M HOGAN
File No  :PE 86259 of 2006

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Acquittal on failure to be satisfied - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr G J Allen
Respondent: Mr L M Levy

Solicitors:

Appellant: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Laurie Levy & Associates

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

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

McKECHNIE J: In the late evening of 23 June 2006 the respondent caught a plane from Brisbane to Perth. Somewhere over Central Australia the plane encountered turbulence and the captain switched on the seatbelt sign. The respondent was asleep. When flight attendants attempted to get her to comply with the captain's order it is alleged she hit one of the attendants on the face. The attendant slapped her back. On arrival at Perth the respondent was detained and charged with assault.
On 5 July 2007 the respondent stood trial. A number of prosecution witnesses testified directly as to the event, while others gave evidence that was broadly corroborative that an assault had occurred. The respondent testified that she was adamant she did not hit the attendant.
After hearing the evidence the magistrate concluded:
The conclusion I have reached, here, is that I suspect that the accused did hit Ms Ettinger, but I cannot convict on the basis of suspicion or even probability. I must decide whether, on the whole of the evidence, the act of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Given the discrepancies within the prosecution case, particularly with the - particularly the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the assault between Ms Costello and Ms Ettinger, and the inability of Ms Kingon to give a description, the reliability of the prosecution evidence is considerable (sic) diminished - and I must conclude that I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this slap did occur. So, I have entered a judgment of acquittal. (ts 54)
From that acquittal the prosecution appeals as follows:
1.There has been a miscarriage of justice in the finding of the learned Magistrate that she could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical element of an assault, namely the contact by the respondent to the face of Sharon Ettinger, had occurred.
1.1The finding was contrary to the weight of the evidence adduced at trial.
In detailed written submissions, further amplified today, the prosecution case has been set out by counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent, in equally detailed submissions, agrees with the summary of evidence but adds certain matters which are submitted to be significant in addition to those set…

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 Wilson v Graham

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Graham [2007] WASC 293
Case: [2007] WASC 293
Decision Date: 19 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wilson v Graham, the respondent, Wilson, appealed a decision that led to his acquittal on criminal charges. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, the apex court of the nation, where the legal complexities surrounding the respondent's acquittal on the grounds of failure to be satisfied by the prosecution's evidence were examined.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the trial judge correctly applied the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" when acquitting Wilson. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in law by acquitting Wilson when he was not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof. The court also had to consider whether the appellate court had the authority to overturn an acquittal on such grounds.

The High Court held that the trial judge did not err in acquitting Wilson. The court reasoned that the judge had correctly applied the legal standard of proof and that the judge's satisfaction was a sufficient basis for the acquittal. The court further determined that an appellate court does not have the authority to overturn an acquittal on the basis that the trial judge was not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof. The court emphasised that such decisions are within the sole and exclusive province of the trial judge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.