Round 2 2024 Case Materials - State of WA V McInnis
Round 2 2024 Case Materials - State of WA V McInnis
Round 2 2024 Case Materials - State of WA V McInnis
Case Materials
Round 2 - 2024
State of Western Australia v McInnis
As at 21 March 2024
Introduction
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.
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;
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
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.
(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 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.
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.
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.
17. This time I saw that she had her hood down so I
could clearly see that it was Tara.
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.
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.
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.