WKS v The State of Western Australia [No 2]
[2020] WASCA 97
•19 JUNE 2020
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: WKS -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2020] WASCA 97
CORAM: BUSS P
MAZZA JA
HEARD: ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED : 19 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S: CACR 103 of 2019
BETWEEN: WKS
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: TROY DCJ
File Number : BUN IND 178 of 2015
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Interlocutory applications in an appeal - Miscellaneous
Legislation:
Nil
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | No appearance (on the papers) |
| Respondent | : | No appearance |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
REASONS OF THE COURT:
The appellant filed various applications in his appeal against conviction on 8 March 2020, 9 March 2020 and 14 April 2020.
On 19 May 2020, we made orders, on the papers, refusing the applications dated 8 March 2020, 9 March 2020 and two of the applications made on 14 April 2020.
On 20 May 2020, the appellant requested our reasons for these orders. These are our reasons.
Background
The appellant was convicted after trial of 17 counts of sexual offending against the complainant, who was his daughter, and one count of assaulting the complainant and causing her bodily harm. The appellant has appealed against his convictions. The appellant was self‑represented at his trial and has represented himself in this court. Unfortunately, it appears that there is little prospect that he will have counsel at the hearing of this appeal.
On 6 April 2020, the appellant filed his appellant's case. In it, he relies on 10 grounds of appeal. The question of leave to appeal on these grounds has been referred to the hearing of the appeal. In broad terms, the appellant alleges that the primary proceedings were an abuse of process; that his lawyers failed in their duty to him; the transcript of his trial had been 'doctored'; evidence against him had been fabricated; various judicial officers, including the judge who conducted his trial, acted with apprehended or actual bias; and that the trial judge made various errors of law.
The applications
The applications which we refused are as follows:
(1)An application dated 8 March 2020 which sought the following:
Order for restriction of contact as per 'orders wanted' in appeal on [the complainant and her sister].
This application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 8 March 2020, which alleged that on 6 March 2020 he received a letter from the complainant and her sister which he said 'upset' him (Application 1).
(2)An application dated 9 March 2020 which sought the following order:
Affidavit for appeal be accepted as evidence crucial to appeal, pages 1 ‑ 33.
This application was accompanied by a 33‑page affidavit sworn by the appellant on 8 March 2020. The content of this affidavit, taking it at its highest, contains submissions and, perhaps, some additional evidence which the appellant claimed to be relevant to his grounds of appeal (Application 2).
(3)An application dated 14 April 2020 which sought an order that the court accept a document accompanying the application, entitled 'Contradicting Statements'. This document, in tabular form, referred to evidence said to contradict statements made by a number of State witnesses in their depositions and their testimonies at trial. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 14 April 2020 which asserted that the document was 'a crucial part of the appellant's case' (Application 3).
(4)An application dated 14 April 2020 which sought leave to file a document entitled 'Transcripts 2017 ‑ 2019'. This document was also in tabular form. It purported to refer to 'dates of hearings/trials and page/paragraph numbers for easy reference for court to view' (Application 4). The document was 23 pages in length. The preamble to the document stated that it was concerned with the following issue:
Issue: all audio/transcripts have been doctored to varying levels to conceal serious misconduct that involves: police/prosecution/representatives and court, attempts to conceal pre‑recorded audiovisual witness statement in special hearing; fabricated evidence; decisions against law/regulations/rules of court and case precedents.
Relevant legislative framework
The jurisdiction to determine applications such as those made by the appellant may be exercised by a single judge: r 7(1) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (the Rules). Such an application may be decided on the basis of the documents filed and without listing it for hearing: r 7(1)(b) of the Rules. The jurisdiction conferred on a single judge may be exercised by the Court of Appeal: r 5A of the Rules. The applications set out in [6] above were dealt with on the papers by the Court of Appeal.
Disposition
We refused the applications set out in [6] above for the following reasons.
Application 1
The court has no power to make the order sought.
Application 2
This application became redundant and unnecessary. It was, in substance, superseded by an application dated 14 April 2020 which sought leave to file a 33‑page document which, in large part, repeated the 33‑page document the subject of this application. The application dated 14 April 2020 has been referred to the hearing of the appeal.
Application 3
Insofar as application 3 purported to be part of a schedule pursuant to practice direction 7.4 of the Consolidated Practice Directions of the Supreme Court, it was neither in the form specified by that practice direction, nor did it come within the subject matter of the practice direction. Its form and content were both confused and confusing and will not assist this court in the resolution of the appeal.
Application 4
The document entitled, 'Transcripts 2017 ‑ 2019' which was the subject of application 4 was, like application 3, confused and confusing and will not assist the court in the resolution of the appeal.
For the above reasons, we dismissed the appellant's applications.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
NF
Research Associate to the Honourable Justice Murphy and the Honourable Justice Mazza19 JUNE 2020
0
0
1