WRAGG -v- BOND [2009] WASC 383

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2009] WASC 383
Case No:	SJA:1045/2009	Heard:	10 SEPTEMBER 2009
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	11/12/09
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed New trial ordered
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ADAM JOHN WRAGG GRAEME JOHN BOND
Catchwords:	Courts and judges Constant intervention Whether a fair trial
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Agostinelli & Lewis (1995) 82 A Crim R 326 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 HL Carley v Sheppard [2004] WASCA 80 Hobbs v C T Tinling and Co Ltd [1929] 2 KB 1 Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100 R v Hircock [1970] 1 QB 67

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : WRAGG -v- BOND [2009] WASC 383 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 10 SEPTEMBER 2009 DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2009 FILE NO/S : SJA 1045 of 2009

Consolidated by Order of McKechnie J on 23 May 2009

BETWEEN : ADAM JOHN WRAGG

Appellant

AND

GRAEME JOHN BOND

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE T J MCINTYRE

Citation : MH 7432 of 2008

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Constant intervention - Whether a fair trial

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

New trial ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S B Watters

Respondent : Mr C G Astill

Solicitors:

Appellant : David Walls & Co

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Agostinelli & Lewis (1995) 82 A Crim R 326
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 HL
Carley v Sheppard [2004] WASCA 80
Hobbs v C T Tinling and Co Ltd [1929] 2 KB 1
Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100
R v Hircock [1970] 1 QB 67

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J

Why the appeal succeeds

1 On 12 September 2008 Mr Wragg was working as a security officer at the Brighton Hotel in Mandurah. He ejected a drunken customer. It was alleged that he beat the customer up outside the range of a security camera. There was a young woman in a position to observe things. Mr Wragg was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. He was entitled to a fair trial before the magistrate. He did not get one. It was as if there was a second prosecutor in the room. The magistrate's interventions took him metaphorically off the bench and into the battle. The appeal must be allowed and a retrial ordered so that Mr Wragg can secure justice according to law whatever the result of the retrial.

What happened at the trial

2 At the hearing of the appeal I said I would obtain the audio record of the trial and compare it with the transcript. The number and nature of interventions by the magistrate shown on the transcript were such that I doubted whether the transcript was accurate. I have since…

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 Wragg v Bond

Details

AGLC: Wragg v Bond [2009] WASC 383
Case: [2009] WASC 383
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wragg v Bond came before the court with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant's constant intervention during the trial process compromised the fairness of the proceedings. The plaintiff, Wragg, contended that the judge's actions in repeatedly interjecting with questions, comments, and directives to both parties amounted to undue influence, thereby depriving Wragg of a fair trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's conduct warranted a new trial.

The central legal issue revolved around the extent to which a judge's intervention during a trial can be considered appropriate, and when such interventions might constitute a breach of the principles of procedural fairness. The court had to consider whether the judge's actions were within the bounds of acceptable judicial conduct or if they amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff's right to a fair trial as enshrined in the common law. This involved an examination of the nature and frequency of the judge's interventions, and their potential impact on the trial's fairness.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the judge's persistent and substantial interventions did indeed exceed acceptable limits. The court held that such behaviour created an environment where the plaintiff's ability to present their case was unduly constrained, thus compromising the fairness of the trial. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not received a trial that met the standards of procedural fairness and ordered a new trial to rectify this. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was mandated.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

New trial ordered

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.