Manonai v Burns

[2011] WASCA 165

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Adequacy of reasons
3. › Magistrates Court
4. › Conflicting evidence of significance
5. › Whether reasons must identify evidence accepted and rejected for each witness
6. › Whether inadequacy of reasons gives rise to miscarriage of justice
7. › Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31
1. Appeal
2. › Adequacy of reasons
3. › Credibility findings
4. › Whether adverse credibility finding may be inferred from reasons
5. › Whether express rejection of evidence required
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Adjournment
3. › Refusal to grant adjournment
4. › Whether denial of procedural fairness
5. › Whether injustice resulted from refusal
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses
5. › Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Quick Take

Section 31 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) does not relieve a magistrate of the obligation to set out findings as to how one set of evidence has been accepted over a conflicting set of significant evidence, but an adverse credibility finding may be inferred from the reasons without express statement. An arithmetical error in reasons that operates in the appellant's favour does not give rise to a miscarriage of justice.