Round 2 2024 Case Materials - State of WA V McInnis

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Mock Trial Competition

Case Materials

Round 2 - 2024
State of Western Australia v McInnis
As at 21 March 2024

Case materials authored by Aoning Li


State of Western Australia v McInnis

Introduction

The Complainant, Joel BURNS, is a Person Protected under a Family Violence


Restraining Order (FVRO). The person bound by the order is Tara MCINNIS, the Accused.
The Accused is charged with breaching the terms of a FVRO pursuant to Section 61 of
the Restraining Orders Act 1997.

The State alleges that Tara breached one of the terms of the FVRO by approaching within
20 metres of Joel on the night of 14 February at the Perth Ikea store. Tara denies she
knowingly approached within that distance and says that once she realised that she was
within that distance, she removed herself from the proximity of the Person Protected as
quickly as possible.

Summary of the Law

The issue for trial is whether the Accused did breach the FVRO by approaching within 20
metres of the Complainant.

The Prosecution bears the onus of proving the charge against the Accused. This means
the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused did in fact
approach within 20 metres of the Complainant.

It may also be an issue for trial whether the defence of ‘mistake of fact’ under Section 24
of the Criminal Code might apply to the Accused’s conduct should the elements of the
offence be otherwise made out.

Relevant to this matter is the case of Sturt v Ball [2013] WASC 343 (the relevant aspects
of which are extracted below in the Legal Notes).

Case Materials
Both teams each receive the same copy of the Case Materials which are comprised of:
1. Legal Notes and Relevant Law;

2. Copy of a Family Violence Restraining Order;

3. Statement of Joel BURNS (the Complainant and Person Protected) (PW1);

4. Statement of Emily JORDAN-BLOOM (Prosecution Witness) (PW2);

5. Statement of Tara MCINNIS (the Defendant) (DW1); and

6. Statement of Sophie WALDORF (Defence Witness) (DW2).

7. Copy of a Facebook post made by Sophie WALDORF.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 2
Assumptions to be made for this case (by judges and student teams)

Please note:

• The above outline is also the order of appearance of each witness. See Mock
Trial Run Sheet for more information about the mock trial proceedings.

• The preferred pronouns of each witness are fixed to ensure consistency in the use
of pronouns of that character for both sides of all trials within the round.

• Students playing the part of a witness are to adopt the preferred pronouns
applicable to that witness, as set out in the material for each round.

Legal Notes

Please note that for the purpose of the Competition the “law” is as contained in this
section of the Case Materials and the Manual are the only substantive matters of law to
be relied on.

The “law” as stated below has been simplified, modified and adapted to facilitate the
Competition meeting its educational objectives. It is expected and required that students
do not go beyond the legal notes in these case materials when presenting their legal
arguments in the mock trial. This is to ensure that the focus of the mock trial hearings is
the development of advocacy skills and not knowledge of substantive law.

Relevant Law

Criminal Code of WA Section 24 - Mistake of fact

A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken,
belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or
omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he
believed to exist.

Restraining Orders Act 1997 Section 61 - Breach of restraining order

(1) A person who is bound by an FVRO and who breaches that order commits an
offence.

Penalty for this subsection: a fine of $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

The case of STURT v BALL [2013] WASC 343

Author’s commentary on the case of Sturt v Ball [2013] WASC 343

The case was an appeal from a criminal trial originally held in the Magistrates Court,
where the accused was found guilty of breaching a VRO term to not ‘approach’ within
20m of the Person Protected by the order.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 3
The Accused (known as the appellant during the appeal) appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court of WA, and was ultimately successful on appeal, having his conviction
set aside and a judgment of acquittal entered in its place.

The appeal was successful because the Supreme Court ruled that the Magistrate in the
original trial defined the term ‘approach’ incorrectly. The Magistrate essentially ruled that
‘approaching within 20m’ of someone included conduct where the Person Bound stayed
within 20m of the Person Protected, or walked side-by-side with them.

Rather, the presiding Judge in the Supreme Court appeal ruled that ‘approach’ should
have a narrower meaning in this context, and only mean actions taken where a Person
Bound brings themselves actually closer to the Person Protected. Since there was not
sufficient evidence of this on the facts of the original case, a judgment of acquittal was
therefore entered.

Extracts from Sturt v Ball [2013] WASC 343

14 In the context of the violence restraining order, and in the context of the charge, the word
'approach' bears its ordinary meaning. 'Approach' is commonly defined to mean 'to come
nearer or near to (someone or something) in distance or time'. The respondent accepts that this
is the meaning of 'approach' in this context.
15 The evidence established that the accused did not approach the protected person. Rather,
the protected person approached the accused.

23 Further, the respondent submits that if 'approach' is construed to apply only when the
person bound by the order physically brings himself closer to the protected person, the
following would also not give rise to a breach:

(a) a protected person walks within the prohibited distance of the person bound by the
order - who having observed the protected person - is otherwise hiding, or intentionally
avoiding being seen by the protected person; or

(b) a person bound by the order intentionally places themselves, stationary, in sites and
localities they know the protected person regularly frequents (but which are not
otherwise the subject of a separate protective order).

24 That submission does not sustain the respondent's construction of 'approach'. As I have
said, it is open to a court making a restraining order to make other orders apart from an order
not to approach. Another available order is not to remain within a given distance of the
protected person.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 4
*
. Judges will be provided with a copy of the judgement in their materials.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 5
STATEMENT OF JOEL BURNS

1. I am 21 years old. I am a law and history double


degree student at Perth University.

2. Last year I briefly dated Tara McINNIS, another


history student in my year. We dated on and off for
a few months, before I ended the relationship on
20 November last year.

3. It wasn’t an amicable break up unfortunately, and


Tara pretty much stalked me for weeks afterwards.

4. She repeatedly messaged me and tried to call me


every day for at least two weeks.

5. This was after I made it clear that I didn’t want to


have any contact with her after we broke up.

6. It got to the point that she even showed up at my


work to try and talk to me.

7. I work at a gym and had to get one of the other


staff to ask her to leave while I hid out the back of
the gym and out of sight.

8. It was after that incident at work that I applied for a


Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) and
was granted one on 13 December. I can provide a
copy of it if requested.

9. The FVRO must have worked because Tara left


me alone after that, and I didn’t hear from her or
see her again until 14 February this year.

10. That evening, I was with my new girlfriend Sophie


WALDORF on a date to the Ikea store in Innaloo.
It’s a large furniture store that also serves great
meatballs, so makes for a pretty romantic
experience.

11. We walked around that store for around 2 hours,


from 6pm to 8pm. It’s a really big store so that was
only just a single lap of the store.

12. During the two hours, I noticed someone wearing a


bright pink hoodie walk past me several times.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 6
13. I couldn’t get a proper look at their face, because
their hood was up.

14. I distinctly remember them because of two things -


they were walking the opposite direction to the rest
of the foot traffic and direction arrows on the floor –
and at one point they deliberately bumped me from
behind before rushing off into the crowd.

15. Apart from the bump, this person in the hoodie


came within one or two metres of me each time
they walked past.

16. I then saw the same person with the hoodie as I


was lining up for the checkout scanners.

17. This time I saw that she had her hood down so I
could clearly see that it was Tara.

18. She was about 2 groups of people behind me in


the line and trying to hide herself behind them from
my sight. We were not more than 6 or 7 metres
apart at this point.

19. My immediate reaction was to yell out to her. I


yelled words to the effect of “What the heck are
you doing here?”.

20. She looked startled that I had caught her


breaching the restraining order, and then ran off in
the other direction in a hurry.

21. She even abandoned her trolley full of furniture just


there.

22. I quickly asked for store security and asked them


to call the police. One of the store security officers
stayed with me for my safety, while we waited for
the police to arrive.

23. Sophie and I are no longer together, but she was


by my side the whole time and would be able to
vouch that everything I said was true.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 7
STATEMENT OF EMILY JORDAN-BLOOM

1. I am 39 years old and work as a security officer for


Ikea in Perth. I have been working in the industry
for more than 15 years, including 8 years at Ikea.

2. I was working at Ikea on 14 February this year and


dealt with two notable incidents that evening.

3. The first was reports from staff of a woman acting


suspiciously in the store around 6:45pm.

4. It was very busy in the store, but I could pick her


out easily among the crowds because she was
wearing a bright pink jumper.

5. As per our security protocols, I discretely followed


the woman from a distance to keep an eye on her.
This went on for around 30 minutes.

6. She was acting quite unusual compared to the


typical customers we had.

7. She had the hood of her jumper up over her head


and kept looking around – not at the furniture or
items for sale, but at the other people around the
store – it was like she was looking for someone.

8. She walked at a fast pace, in the opposite direction


to the arrows we have on the floor of the store to
direct people. I remember she covered most of the
area of the store in the time I was following her –
which is quite fast because it’s a very big store.

9. After this time following the woman, I was called off


to attend to a different (unrelated) security related
issue elsewhere in the store. I finished attending to
that other issue around 7:30 or so, at which time I
went back to my usual patrol route around the
store.

10. I remember seeing the woman in the pink jumper


again during my patrol route. This time she had
trolley with some boxes and other items in it.

11. I decided to keep an eye on her again, and


watched as she went to the end of the store where
all the checkout counters were.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 8
12. She didn’t go to a checkout station or anything,
which I thought was odd because the queues were
getting longer as it got closer to closing time.

13. She just stood to the side. She seemed to be


waiting for someone.

14. I decided to move on and stop my surveillance of


her because she hadn’t actually done anything
particularly concerning in terms of shoplifting or
store security.

15. I was standing watch at the self-checkout stations


around 8:05pm, when I heard someone yelling out
loudly and aggressively from one of the queues.

16. Looking over I saw a man pointing behind him in


the queue, to the woman in the pink jumper I had
seen earlier.

17. I had a good view of both of them from where I was


standing. I was side on to the queue of shoppers
around 15 metres away. The woman was around 5
meters back in the line from the man.

18. The woman stared at the man with a look of


surprise on her face before running off in the
opposite direction (back into the store).

19. I tried to give chase but she soon ran out one of
the emergency side exits, at which point I gave up
and went back to check out area.

20. I quickly went over to the man and asked what had
happened. He told me that he had a restraining
order against the woman who had run off, and she
had been breaching it by following him around the
store. He showed me a copy of his restraining
order.

21. I stayed with him while the police were called, who
subsequently attended and took a statement from
the man.

22. Unfortunately, the CCTV system was not working


that evening in the store, so the store can’t provide
any additional evidence from that.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 9
STATEMENT OF TARA MCINNIS

1. I am 21 years old. I am a final year history student


at Perth University. I live in Innaloo, about a 7-
minute walk from the Ikea store.

2. I was in a relationship with Joel BURNS from


February last year until we broke up in November. I
found out he was dating another girl at the same
time as me and confronted him about it. He
responded by essentially “ghosting” me from then
on.

3. I was quite angry at the time since he was the one


who had cheated on me. I admit I sent him more
texts than I should have and called him quite a few
times. In hindsight I probably shouldn’t have let
him get to me as much as he did.

4. I didn’t stalk him or anything though. I went to his


workplace once to drop off a box of his things he
left at my place which is why I was surprised when
I was served with a Family Violence Restraining
Order on 16 December by the police.

5. I have never been in trouble before and didn’t even


know what a restraining order was. I looked it up
on the Magistrate’s Court WA and the Legal Aid
website. Since I didn’t plan on breaching it, I
decided not to object to it.

6. On 14 February, I remember reading a post on the


Perth University “Confessions” page talking about
someone going on a Valentine’s date to Ikea.

7. I don’t remember the exact wording but I left a


‘angry’ react emoji on post, because it reminded
me of my lame first date with Joel, which was at
Ikea on Valentines day last year.

8. That evening, I decided to do the “single


empowered female” thing and go to Ikea just with
myself for dinner and some retail therapy. I just
love their plant meatballs!

9. I got there around 6pm and had dinner in the café


for about 30 minutes. I was wearing a Barbie pink
hooded jumper.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 10
10. I then did some casual browsing for the next hour
or so. It was really crowded. I remember having to
weave and squeeze through groups and around
the slow walkers.

11. Around 7:45pm or so, I grabbed a trolley and


headed back to pick up the items I wanted to buy. I
wasn’t there to buy anything specific. I think there
was a bedside table (flat packed), frames, artificial
plants – that sort of thing. I can’t remember exactly.

12. I joined one of the checkout queues and waited in


line. I remember thinking it was moving really
slowly but I was otherwise daydreaming and not
really paying attention.

13. I suddenly heard a man’s voice yelling which


immediately startled and confused me as it
sounded like Joel.

14. I looked around but couldn’t see him until he


suddenly stepped out from a crowd of people at
the checkout and started walking towards me, still
yelling and pointing his finger at me.

15. I panicked when I saw him. I hadn’t known he was


at Ikea until then. My immediate thought was that I
must not breach the restraining order.

16. I had read on a Legal Aid website that if the person


protected in the restraining order approached you,
it was best to go in the other direction from them as
fast as possible.

17. I was terrified of ending up with a criminal record


so just left my trolley and ran in the opposite
direction to Joel. I left the store through an
emergency door that had been propped open.

18. About a week later, Sophie WALDORF, a student


in history class, approached me and said she had
been on a date with Joel that night at Ikea and had
seen everything that happened.

19. I didn’t know Sophie personally but had seen her


around campus. We bonded over our respective
lame first dates with Joel and have since become
friends. I imagine she would be able to corroborate
what I said happened.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 11
STATEMENT OF SOPHIE WALDORF

1. I am 21 years old studying history at Perth


University.

2. I know Joel Burns. He was in the same history


class as me before he asked me out on a date in
February this year. I thought it was a bit odd that
he suggested Ikea as the venue for this date,
which coincidentally fell on Valentine’s Day – 14
February.

3. Leading up to the date, I submitted an anonymous


“confession” to a Perth University Facebook page
that publishes gossip anonymously. They
published it on Valentine’s Day. It was a bit of a
joke post, I have produced a screenshot of it. I
actually was looking forward to the date. Joel
seemed nice.

4. We met in the carpark outside Ikea around 6pm


and went to the café to have dinner. Unfortunately,
it was really crowded and loud, and not a great
atmosphere for a date. Joel spent the time mainly
talking about himself and law related things. It
wasn’t enjoyable.

5. I remember seeing Tara McINNIS in the café at the


same time as us. She stood out as she was
wearing a bright pink hoodie (I had the same one).
I knew her from school as we had a class together.

6. She was having dinner by herself on the far side of


the café, at least 40 metres away. I’m pretty sure
she didn’t even notice Joel and I there. She was
still there when Joel and I finished dinner after 40
minutes or so.

7. After dinner Joel and I went for a walk through the


store. I thought it might lead to some funny antics
in the store, but Joel just spent the whole time
looking for a new study desk.

8. I was pretty bored, and I remember just scrolling


through my phone for some of the time while Joel
looked at furniture. I remember seeing Joel get
bumped by someone rushing past at one point but
didn’t think anything of it since it was really
crowded in there at that point.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 12
9. The only time I saw Tara after dinner was when
Joel and I were lined up waiting to check out of the
store. Joel was excitedly talking about his new
study desk which he had in his trolley when he
suddenly started yelling.

10. I turned around to see what he was yelling about


and couldn’t see who he was talking to initially –
there were people in the queue blocking my line of
sight.

11. Joel started walking in the direction he was


pointing and that was when I saw Tara in her pink
jumper suddenly take off, running in the other
direction.

12. I then heard Joel shout for someone to get store


security. I didn’t know anything about a restraining
order, or the history between Tara and Joel at that
point. At the time it felt like Joel was overreacting
and I felt embarrassed he was causing a scene.

13. I had enough by that point anyway, so I told Joel I


had to leave. He said he was going to wait for
police arrive to make a statement.

14. After that date, I had a few missed calls from Joel
but I didn’t return them. I was happy to leave it at
the one date.

15. A week later, I saw Tara in one of my classes and


introduced myself to her. I asked her what the story
was with her, Joel, and the whole incident. We
ended up sharing notes about our dating
experiences and had a bit of a laugh at it all.

16. She mentioned that she had been charged with


breaching the FVRO. I couldn’t believe it and
offered to be a witness for her.

17. I can firmly say that I never saw her approach


within 20 metres of Joel. I was next to Joel for the
entire time inside Ikea until Tara left the store.

18. The only time she might have been closer than 20
metres to Joel was right at the end, when she was
heading towards the emergency door as fast as
possible in order to leave the store.

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 13
COPY OF POST FROM PERTH UNIVERSITY FACEBOOK PAGE PROVIDED BY
SOPHIE WALDORF

Mock Trial Competition, Round 2 2024 Case Materials


The Law Society of Western Australia Page 14

You might also like