WOOD -v- MARSH [2003] WASCA 95
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 95 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | 12/05/2003 | ||
| Case No: | SJA:1093/2002 | 13 MARCH 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J ANDERSON J | 13/03/03 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against refusal of leave to appeal allowed Appeal allowed Charges remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions at Margaret River to consider the making of a spent conviction order Compensation reduced from $500 to $195 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MORGAN RHYS WOOD KRISTOFER JON MARSH |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against refusal to grant leave to appeal Procedural fairness Failure by Justices of the Peace to inform appellant of right to seek legal advice Failure to consider a spent conviction order Failure to give reasons for the decision Proceedings not recorded Duty of Court to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his or her rights |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 187, s 196(1)(a), s 196(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(2) Police Act 1892 (WA), s 80(1) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 39, s 39(2)(c), s 45, s 45(1), s 117 Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA) |
Case References: | "A" v Ray [2001] WASCA 340 Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271 Cooling v Steel (1971) 2 SASR 249 Dempster v National Companies and Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215 Hasting v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Jones v Holmwood [1974] WAR 33 Ladlow v Hayes (1983) 8 A Crim R 377 Nisbet v Fullarton, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930265; 14 May 1993 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Republic of Peru v Peruvian Guano Co Ltd (1887) 36 Ch D 489 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66 Salter v Seebohm (1972) 4 SASR 192 State of Western Australia v Landers (2000) 22 WAR 278 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WOOD -v- MARSH [2003] WASCA 95 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MURRAY J
ANDERSON J
- Appellant
AND
KRISTOFER JON MARSH
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against refusal to grant leave to appeal - Procedural fairness - Failure by Justices of the Peace to inform appellant of right to seek legal advice - Failure to consider a spent conviction order - Failure to give reasons for the decision - Proceedings not recorded - Duty of Court to ascertain whether a defendant is aware of his or her rights
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 187, s 196(1)(a), s 196(2)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(2)
Police Act1892 (WA), s 80(1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 39, s 39(2)(c), s 45, s 45(1), s 117
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)
Result:
Continue reading Wood v Marsh
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wood v Marsh [2003] WASCA 95
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wood v Marsh involved the appellant appealing against the refusal of the Magistrates Court to grant leave to appeal against a conviction by the Court of Petty Sessions. The appellant argued that the Court of Petty Sessions did not adhere to procedural fairness, as they failed to inform him of his right to seek legal advice, did not consider a spent conviction order, and did not provide reasons for their decision. Furthermore, the proceedings were not recorded. The appellant claimed that the court should have ascertained whether he was aware of his rights. The appeal was heard by the Magistrates Court, which dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The appellant then sought leave to appeal to a higher court, which was also refused. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the Magistrates Court had erred in law by refusing leave to appeal, whether the Court of Petty Sessions had breached procedural fairness by failing to inform the appellant of his right to seek legal advice, and whether the Magistrates Court had correctly assessed the appellant's chances of success on appeal. The court also needed to consider whether the Court of Petty Sessions had failed to consider a spent conviction order and if the lack of reasons and unrecorded proceedings were grounds for appeal.
In its reasoning, the court found that the Magistrates Court had indeed erred in law by not providing adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the appellant's right to procedural fairness was breached by the Court of Petty Sessions, as they failed to inform him of his right to seek legal advice. Furthermore, the court held that the Magistrates Court should have assessed the appellant's chances of success on appeal more thoroughly. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had demonstrated a real prospect of success on appeal and that the Magistrates Court had not adequately considered the evidence provided by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal was allowed, and the charges were remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions at Margaret River to consider the making of a spent conviction order. The compensation awarded to the appellant was reduced from $500 to $195.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the Magistrates Court had erred in law by refusing leave to appeal, whether the Court of Petty Sessions had breached procedural fairness by failing to inform the appellant of his right to seek legal advice, and whether the Magistrates Court had correctly assessed the appellant's chances of success on appeal. The court also needed to consider whether the Court of Petty Sessions had failed to consider a spent conviction order and if the lack of reasons and unrecorded proceedings were grounds for appeal.
In its reasoning, the court found that the Magistrates Court had indeed erred in law by not providing adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the appellant's right to procedural fairness was breached by the Court of Petty Sessions, as they failed to inform him of his right to seek legal advice. Furthermore, the court held that the Magistrates Court should have assessed the appellant's chances of success on appeal more thoroughly. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had demonstrated a real prospect of success on appeal and that the Magistrates Court had not adequately considered the evidence provided by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal was allowed, and the charges were remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions at Margaret River to consider the making of a spent conviction order. The compensation awarded to the appellant was reduced from $500 to $195.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against refusal of leave to appeal allowed
Appeal allowed
Charges remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions at Margaret River to consider
the making of a spent conviction order
Compensation reduced from $500 to $195
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.