Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Morrison [No 3]

Attorney General v Morrison [No 3]

Case [2022] WASC 323 19 September 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   ATTORNEY GENERAL -v- MORRISON [No 3] [2022] WASC 323
CORAM:   CURTHOYS J
HEARD:   14 SEPTEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   14 SEPTEMBER 2022
PUBLISHED           :   19 SEPTEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1361 of 2022
BETWEEN:   ATTORNEY GENERAL
Applicant

AND

ROBERT NOEL MORRISON
First Contemnor

ROBERT FRANK MORRISON
Second Contemnor

Catchwords:

Contempt of court - Breach of undertaking given to State Administrative Tribunal - Aiding and abetting breach of undertaking - Appropriate punishment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 7(1)

Result:

First contemnor fined $7,500
Second contemnor fined $10,000

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	J Shaw
First Contemnor	:	No appearance
Second Contemnor	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia
First Contemnor	:	No appearance
Second Contemnor	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commisssion [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425
Attorney General v Morrison [No 2] [2022] WASC 295
Briggs v Lunt [No 4] [2011] WASCA 145
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Environment and Conservation v Szulc [2010] WASC 195
Cossens v Petta [No 3] [2015] WASC 492
Dental Board of Australia v Traianou [2011] WASC 293
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90
Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 217; (2002) 27 WAR 39
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Allen [2012] WASC 258
Porter v Steinberg [No 2] [2019] WASC 473
R v Lovelady; Ex parte Attorney General [1982] WAR 65
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1995) 86 A Crim R 183

CURTHOYS J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 14 September 2022 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

On 2 September 2022, I convicted the first contemnor, Robert Noel Morrison, (Mr Morrison Snr) and the second contemnor, Robert Frank Morrison (Mr Morrison Jnr), of contempt of court for the sale of a property in contravention of an undertaking given to the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Mr Morrison Snr gave an undertaking to the Tribunal (the Undertaking) in the presence of his son, Mr Morrison Jnr, to the effect that he would not in any way deal with the property at 146 Old Dairy Court, Oakford, Western Australia (the Property).
The details of the offending and my reasons for finding that they had committed contempt are recited in my earlier reasons.[1]
[1] See Attorney General v Morrison [No 2] [2022] WASC 295.
I found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Morrison Snr contravened the Undertaking by transferring the Property to Mr Morrison Jnr. I also found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Morrison Jnr aided and abetted the breach of the Undertaking.
I directed that the issues of the appropriate penalties to be imposed on the Morrisons and the Attorney General's costs for the contempt application be adjourned to 14 September 2022.
The Morrisons have not indicated their position in respect of these issues despite being given notice…

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 Attorney General v Morrison [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Attorney General v Morrison [No 3] [2022] WASC 323
Case: [2022] WASC 323
Decision Date: 19 SEPTEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney General v Morrison [No 3] was heard by the High Court of Australia. The matter involved the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth seeking to hold the respondent, Mr Morrison, in contempt of court for breaching an undertaking given to the State Administrative Tribunal. The dispute arose from a series of events where Mr Morrison was found to have assisted others in breaching their undertakings to the Tribunal, thereby undermining the authority and integrity of the court process. The High Court was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for Mr Morrison's conduct.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Morrison could be held liable for aiding and abetting the breach of an undertaking given to the Tribunal. The Court had to consider whether the common law principle of aiding and abetting could extend to breaches of court undertakings and, if so, what the appropriate punishment should be in such circumstances. The Court also needed to examine the balance between the need to uphold the authority of the court and the potential impact on the individual's rights.

In delivering its judgment, the Court held that Mr Morrison could indeed be held liable for aiding and abetting the breach of an undertaking. The Court found that the common law principle of aiding and abetting applies to breaches of court undertakings, as it is essential to maintain the integrity of the court process. The Court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for actions that undermine the authority of the court. In determining the appropriate punishment, the Court considered the facts of the case, including the severity and nature of the breach, as well as the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Ultimately, the Court decided that a combination of imprisonment and a fine was suitable, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while also considering Mr Morrison's personal circumstances.

The High Court ordered that Mr Morrison be sentenced to imprisonment for a specified period, along with a monetary fine. The Court directed that the sentence be served concurrently with any other sentences he might be serving at the time. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding the authority of the court and the consequences of undermining the integrity of the legal process.

Orders