WINMAR -v- BROMFIELD [2013] WASC 141

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 141
Published:	22/04/2013
Case No:	SJA:1025/2013	Heard:	13 MARCH 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	13/03/13
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Conviction set aside and acquittal entered
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	TEANNA LINDA WINMAR HIS HONOUR MAGISTRATE R H BROMFIELD
Catchwords:	Criminal law Contempt of court Whether charge put to appellant Whether appellant given opportunity to defend charge or make submissions Whether appellant given opportunity to apologise or address on penalty Procedural fairness
Legislation:	Magistrates Court (General) Rules 2005 (WA), r 30, r 31 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15, s 16
Case References:	Balanto [1963] SRNSW 200 Castle City Pty Ltd v New Vintage Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 30 Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573 Davenport v Vose [2003] WASCA 44 Ex parte Ferandez [1861] 30 LJCP 321 Gliosca v Ninyett (1992) 10 WAR 562 Lewis v Judge Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682 Macgroarty v Clauson [1989] HCA 34; (1989) 167 CLR 251 Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo [2013] WASC 66 R v Castro; Skipworth's case [1873] LR 9 QB 219 Zakanovich v Magistrates Court of Victoria at Moorabbin [2011] VSC 141; (2011) 32 VR 216

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : WINMAR -v- BROMFIELD [2013] WASC 141 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 13 MARCH 2013 DELIVERED : 13 MARCH 2013 PUBLISHED : 22 APRIL 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1025 of 2013 BETWEEN : TEANNA LINDA WINMAR

Appellant

AND

HIS HONOUR MAGISTRATE R H BROMFIELD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE R H BROMFIELD

File No : PE 6204 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Contempt of court - Whether charge put to appellant - Whether appellant given opportunity to defend charge or make submissions - Whether appellant given opportunity to apologise or address on penalty - Procedural fairness

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (General) Rules 2005 (WA), r 30, r 31

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15, s 16

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside and acquittal entered

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D D Brunello

Respondent : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: Mr A J Sefton & Ms C A Lakewood

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)

Respondent : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: Attorney General for Western Australia

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

Balanto [1963] SRNSW 200
Castle City Pty Ltd v New Vintage Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 30
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Davenport v Vose [2003] WASCA 44
Ex parte Ferandez [1861] 30 LJCP 321
Gliosca v Ninyett (1992) 10 WAR 562
Lewis v Judge Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682
Macgroarty v Clauson [1989] HCA 34; (1989) 167 CLR 251
Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo [2013] WASC 66

(Page 3)

R v Castro; Skipworth's case [1873] LR 9 QB…

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 Winmar v Bromfield

Details

AGLC: WINMAR -v- BROMFIELD [2013] WASC 141
Case: [2013] WASC 141
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Winmar v Bromfield involved the appellant, Winmar, who was found guilty of contempt of court by a magistrates' court. The conviction related to statements Winmar made following the sentencing of a third party in a separate criminal matter. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the conviction. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the charge of contempt was adequately put to Winmar, if he was given a fair opportunity to defend himself or make submissions, and whether he was given a chance to apologise or address the penalty imposed. The appeal also examined whether the proceedings met the requirements of procedural fairness.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding contempt of court and the obligations of a court to ensure procedural fairness in such matters. The key issue was whether Winmar's right to a fair hearing was compromised. The court found that the charge of contempt was not clearly articulated to Winmar, and he was not afforded the opportunity to defend himself or make submissions. Additionally, Winmar was not given a chance to apologise or address the penalty before it was imposed. The court held that these failures breached the principles of procedural fairness, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Given these findings, the High Court concluded that the conviction should be set aside and an acquittal entered in its place. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, recognising that Winmar's rights were not properly protected during the original proceedings. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that all parties in contempt proceedings are afforded procedural fairness and their rights are respected.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside and 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.