Ex PARTE ASTON. Constitutional Law (Cth.)-Judicial power-Executive power-Legislative power as
to service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of process--Statute- Validity-Execution of warrant for apprehension of person in State other than that of issue-Provision for indorsement of warrant in State of execution-
By magistrate etc. having power to issue warrants in that State-Power conferred on magistrate etc. to remand to State of issue of warrant or to admit to bail or discharge person apprehended-Jurisdiction conferred on judge of the Supreme Court of the State to review decision of magistrate etc. by way of rehearing- Whether in his capacity to constitute the Supreme Court-Conspiracy to cheat and defraud-Object of conspiracy-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), SS. 51 (xxiv.), 67, 77 (iii.)-Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1953 (No. 11 of 1901-No. 48 of 1953), 88. 18, 19.
The Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1953 provides as follows :- 18.-(1) Where a Court, a Judge, a Police, Stipendiary or Special Magistrate, a Justice of the Peace or an officer of a court has, in accordance with the law of a State or part of the Commonwealth, issued a warrant for the apprehension of a person, a Magistrate, Justice of the Peace or officer of a court who has power to issue warrants for the apprehension of persons under the law of another State or part of the Commonwealth, being a State or part of the Commonwealth in or on his way to which the person against whom the warrant has been issued is or is supposed to be, may, on being satisfied that the warrant was issued by the Court, Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace or officer (after proof on oath, in the case of a warrant issued by a Magistrate, Justice of the Peace or officer of a court, of the signature of the person by whom the warrant was issued), make an indorsement on the warrant in the form, or to the effect of the form, in the Second Schedule to this Act authorizing its execution in that other State or part of the Commonwealth. (2) (3) Subject to this section, the Magistrate or Justice of the Peace before whom the person is brought may-(a) by warrant under his hand, order the person to be returned to the State or part of the Commonwealth in which the original warrant was issued and, for that purpose, to be delivered into the custody of the person bringing the warrant or of a constable or other person to whom the warrant was originally directed; or (b) admit the person to bail, on such recognizances as he thinks fit, on condition that the person appears at such time, and at such place in the State or part of the Commonwealth in which the original warrant was issued, as the Magistrate or Justice specifies to answer the charge or complaint or to be…
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 Aston v Irvine
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Aston v Irvine [1955] HCA 53
Case
[1955] HCA 53
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned applications to review decisions of Victorian magistrates regarding the apprehension and return of individuals to South Australia to face charges of conspiracy to cheat and defraud. The applicants, Detective-Sergeant Aston of the South Australian Police, sought to have warrants for the arrest of Henry William Irvine, Lyall James Jenkins, and Noel William Conway executed in Victoria and the accused returned to South Australia. The accused, apprehended in Victoria, were charged with conspiring to cheat and defraud by using an electric battery on a racehorse.
The central legal issues before the High Court were the constitutional validity of sections 18 and 19 of the *Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1953* (Cth), and whether, on the facts presented, it would be unjust or oppressive to return the accused to South Australia for trial. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Act validly conferred powers on State magistrates and justices of the peace to indorse warrants and make decisions regarding the return or discharge of apprehended persons, and if the review provisions by a Supreme Court judge were constitutionally sound.
The High Court held that sections 18 and 19 of the *Service and Execution of Process Act* were valid exercises of the Commonwealth Parliament's legislative power under section 51(xxiv) and section 77(iii) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that section 18(1) did not involve an interference with the executive government of the States and that the powers conferred were exercised with independent responsibility, not as part of the Commonwealth's executive power. Subsections 18(3) and (6), read together, were found not to necessarily amount to a grant of the judicial power of the Commonwealth and were therefore valid. Section 19, which provided for a judicial review by a Supreme Court judge, was also upheld as a valid exercise of legislative power under section 77(iii), with jurisdiction conferred on the judge in their capacity to constitute the Supreme Court.
Regarding the specific cases, the Court found that the alleged conspiracy involved elements of deception beyond merely violating racing rules, which could constitute an indictable offence. Consequently, the orders nisi to review the discharge of Irvine and Jenkins were made absolute, ordering their return to South Australia, with bail granted. The order nisi to review the decision concerning Conway was discharged, and he was also admitted to bail for his appearance in South Australia.