On 20 January 2026, we made an order that the appellant's application in an appeal dated 31 December 2025, together with an affidavit sworn by the appellant on the same date, and a USB that accompanied the affidavit, not be accepted for filing. These are our reasons for making that order.
On 12 August 2024, the appellant was convicted after a trial in the Magistrates Court of three charges: failure to comply with a request from a police officer to provide personal details; obstructing a public officer; and, performing an indecent act in public. The appellant received spent convictions and a suspended fine of $1,000 for all three offences.
The appellant appealed her convictions and sentence to a single judge of the General Division.[1] On 20 May 2025, Whitby J refused leave to appeal on the 63 grounds raised by the appellant and dismissed the appeal. On 27 June 2025, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the decision of Whitby J.
The appellant's case was filed on 5 November 2025. There are eight grounds of appeal. The appellant describes the central issues as being whether the prosecution failed to call a material witness, whether her initial detention by the police was unlawful, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable or not supported by the evidence. None of the grounds refer to fresh evidence.
On a number of prior occasions, the appellant has sought to file documents which have been rejected because they were not compliant with the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules). The acting Court of Appeal registrar has written to the appellant on 9 July 2025, 16 July 2025, 31 July 2025, 11 August 2025, 4 November 2025 and 18 November 2025, explaining the reasons why these documents were not accepted for filing. Issues have included; failure to date the document or include the matter number; inclusion of submissions in affidavits rather than limiting them to factual matters; failure to annex documents referred to in affidavits; and, failure to address how the documents are relevant to the appellant's grounds of appeal.
Whilst the court makes allowances for self‑represented litigants, the Rules are not merely about establishing formalities. Uniform compliance with the Rules ensures that cases are dealt with in an orderly way that is fair to all parties. Furthermore, appeals require the identification of error in the court below - they are not an opportunity to conduct a new trial or a general inquiry.
The most recent application is dated 31 December 2025. An amended application was provided to the court on 6 January 2026. Amongst other things, that application seeks leave to adduce evidence in the appeal and leave to issue a witness summons. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of the appellant, which has attached to it various documents. The appellant also sought to file a USB. The USB contains body‑worn camera footage and copies of documents. The copy documents appear to be documents that were lodged in the appeal to the General Division.
It appears that the appellant wishes to call a police officer who was not a witness in the original proceedings and to adduce the body‑worn camera footage from that officer. The relevance of the other documents on the USB is not apparent because they are not referred to in the application or the affidavit.
As noted earlier, there is no fresh evidence ground in the grounds of appeal. The appellant does, however, suggest that the failure of the prosecution to call the police officer who took the body‑worn camera footage occasioned a miscarriage of justice, but that ground does not require the calling of that officer on the appeal. In any event, the body‑worn camera footage was adduced at the trial in the Magistrates Court as 'Exhibit A'. As the primary court file, including the exhibits, is provided to this court when an appeal is commenced, there is no necessity to adduce a further copy of this recording. Further, there is no explanation of how the other documents on the USB are relevant to the appeal or why there is any purpose in adducing them.
The other matters raised in the application relate to an attempt by the appellant to file additional submissions and an amended list of authorities. The appellant has already filed written submissions and a list of authorities as part of her appellant's case. There is no right to file supplementary submissions, whether or not in response to the respondent's answer. The appellant will have an opportunity to respond to the respondent's answer at the hearing of the appeal. In any event, the proposed amended list of authorities is not compliant as it does not simply list the authorities but includes selected passages with specific sentences highlighted in yellow or blue. There is also an application to amend 'annexures', but it is not clear what that part of the application is referring to.
The application also seeks an extension of time, but it is not apparent what that extension relates to. The appeal was commenced out of time and an application to extend time has already been filed and referred to the hearing of the appeal.
For those reasons, the application (as amended) dated 31 December 2025 was not compliant, and we made the order that it not be accepted for filing.
On 21 January 2026, the appellant sent an email requesting reasons for our order. She also sought a directions hearing to 'address the refusal and obtain directions'. As the decision has been made, there is nothing to address and no directions to be made. Accordingly, a directions hearing for the purposes referred to by the appellant would be inappropriate.
[2]
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.