Barton, E.A. v Croner Trading Pty Ltd - [1984] FCA 149

Re: EDWINA ALICE BARTON
And: CRONER TRADING PTY. LIMITED
Nos. G199 to G216 of 1983
Criminal Law and Procedure
(1984) ATPR para 40 - 466

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beaumont J.

CATCHWORDS

Criminal law and procedure - Application to state special case - Contest as to finding of fact - Whether prosecutor should have leave to re-open on hearing of application to state case - Inference to be drawn from the circumstances - onus of proof.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 7:6:1984

JUDGE1

This is the statement of a special case to the Full Federal Court pursuant to s.25(6) of the Federal Court Act, 1976 made upon the application of both parties in a series of prosecutions under s.79 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974. The informations for the offences charge a number of contraventions of s.53(a) and (c) of the Trade Practices Act said to arise out of representations allegedly made by the defendant in connection with the sale of certain toys. The informations which are of immediate concern were laid on 1 August 1983. The prosecution alleges that certain of the contraventions occurred on 2 August 1982 when the goods in question were displayed for sale at a retail store. A question arises in this connection, and otherwise, whether the prosecution was commenced within the one year time limit provided by s.21 of the Crimes Act, 1914 (see, for example, Thompson v. Riley McKay Pty. Ltd. (No. 3) (1980) 43 F.L.R. 293).

Although both parties joined in the application to state a case to the Full Court, they were unable to agree on one particular fact to be included in the special case, namely, the date upon which a toy kangaroo was first displayed and offered for sale at Woolworths Limited's Big W store at Chullora.

The background facts to the prosecution appear from the draft Special Case in the schedule hereto. In dispute is the date upon which the toy kangaroo purchased by Mervyn Reilly from Woolworths Limited's Big W store at Chullora was first displayed and offered for sale (see draft Special Case, para. 13). Evidence was led by the prosecutor in an endeavour to establish that the date in question was Monday, 2 August 1982. The defendant, on the other hand, submitted that there existed a reasonable doubt that this was the date, submitting that it was possible that the kangaroo was put on display on either Friday, 30 July or Saturday, 31 July, 1982.

The evidence led by the prosecutor, prior to the close of the case for the defence, was given by Michael John Manfredotti, the Operations Manager of Woolworth's store at the time. Mr. Manfredotti's affidavit, sworn 26 March 1984, reads, so far as material, as follows:

"3. As Operations Manager, my duties included making decisions about when certain lines should first be put on display to the public in the Chullora Big W store. I used the 'REMARKS/DISPLAY' column of the ADVT LINES…

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 Barton, E.A. v Croner Trading Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Barton, E.A. v. Croner Trading Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 149
Case: [1984] FCA 149
Decision Date: 07 JUNE 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barton, E.A. v Croner Trading Pty Ltd involved a dispute where the applicant, Barton, sought leave to re-open the case to state a special case. The respondent, Croner Trading Pty Ltd, contested the finding of fact that Barton had made a false representation. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary concern was whether the prosecutor should be granted leave to re-open the case to address the contested finding of fact.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecutor should be allowed to re-open the case based on the contested finding of fact, and if so, whether such a re-opening would be justified under the circumstances. The court also needed to consider the implications of allowing a re-opening of the case on the onus of proof and the principles of fairness in criminal proceedings. The central issue was whether the contested finding of fact warranted a re-opening of the case and, if so, whether it was appropriate to allow the prosecutor to re-open the case on the hearing of the application to state a special case.

The court's reasoning focused on the principle that once a case has been closed, it should only be re-opened if there are exceptional circumstances that justify such a step. In this instance, the contested finding of fact was deemed significant enough to warrant a re-opening of the case. The court concluded that the prosecutor should be granted leave to re-open the case to address the contested finding of fact. The court emphasised that the onus of proof remained with the prosecutor, and that the re-opening of the case was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process while also allowing for the correction of errors that could impact the outcome of the case.

Orders