BROMLEY -v- BEMBRIDGE [2002] WASCA 192
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 192 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1010/2002 | 26 JUNE 2002 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 19/07/02 | |
| 43 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against convictions dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STUART JAMES BROMLEY KARIN HOPE BEMBRIDGE |
Catchwords: | Appeal Justices Act 1902 (WA) Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA) Convictions of carrying on business as a travel agent without a licence Holding out as carrying on business of a travel agent whilst not the holder of a licence Whether appellant acting in course of his employment Whether excepted under s 4(2) of the Travel Agents Act 1985 Appeal Summary jurisdiction Late amendment of charges Adjournment Summary jurisdiction Reasons for decision Whether required Sufficiency of reasons Appeal Sentence Fines onefifth the statutory maximum Whether manifestly excessive |
Legislation: | Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA), s 4, s 7 |
Case References: | Allen v Gittos (1995) 13 WAR 560 Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249 Donovan v Edwards [1922] VLR 87 Everard v Opperman [1958] VR 389 Grakalic v The Queen [2002] WASCA 139 Markarian v The Queen [2001] WASCA 393 Mathews v The Queen [2001] WASCA 264 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Edwards [1975] QB 27 R v Fischer (1973) 22 FLR 456 R v McGill [1967] VR 683 Taylor v Ellis [1956] VR 457 Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584 Vines v Djordjevetich (1955) 91 CLR 512 Buller v The Queen [2002] WASCA 90 R v Brown [1998] AC 367 R v Cox [1960] VR 665 R v Devenish [1969] VR 737 R v Easom (1981) 28 SASR 134 R v Hall (1890) 16 VLR 650 R v Jones [1971] VR 72 R v Utans (1982) 29 SASR 592 R v Van Beelen (1973) 4 SASR 353 Thornberry v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 777 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- SJA 1019 of 2002
Consolidated by Order dated 25 February 2002
- Appellant
AND
KARIN HOPE BEMBRIDGE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA) - Convictions of carrying on business as a travel agent without a licence - Holding out as carrying on business of a travel agent whilst not the holder of a licence - Whether appellant acting in course of his employment - Whether excepted under s 4(2) of the Travel Agents Act 1985
Appeal - Summary jurisdiction - Late amendment of charges - Adjournment
Summary jurisdiction - Reasons for decision - Whether required - Sufficiency of reasons
Appeal - Sentence - Fines onefifth the statutory maximum - Whether manifestly excessive
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA), s 4, s 7
Result:
Continue reading Bromley v Bembridge
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bromley v Bembridge [2002] WASCA 192
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This appeal arose out of a conviction in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, where the appellant, Bromley, was found guilty of carrying on business as a travel agent without a licence in contravention of section 4(1) of the Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA). The appellant had been held out by Bembridge, a licensed travel agent, as carrying on the business of a travel agent while not being the holder of a licence. The case involved several legal issues, including whether the appellant was acting in the course of his employment, whether he was excepted under section 4(2) of the Travel Agents Act, and if the late amendment of charges and adjournment were justified under summary jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's actions were not excepted under section 4(2) of the Travel Agents Act, and he was not acting in the course of his employment. Additionally, the Court held that the amendment of charges and adjournment were justified under the circumstances. The Court also determined that the trial judge was not required to provide reasons for his decision, and that the fines imposed were not manifestly excessive, being one-fifth of the statutory maximum.
As a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed. The appellant's conviction for carrying on business as a travel agent without a licence, and the fines imposed, were upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in imposing the fines, and that there was no error in the trial judge's decision. The appellant's appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, and the convictions and fines imposed by the Magistrates Court were upheld.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's actions were not excepted under section 4(2) of the Travel Agents Act, and he was not acting in the course of his employment. Additionally, the Court held that the amendment of charges and adjournment were justified under the circumstances. The Court also determined that the trial judge was not required to provide reasons for his decision, and that the fines imposed were not manifestly excessive, being one-fifth of the statutory maximum.
As a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed. The appellant's conviction for carrying on business as a travel agent without a licence, and the fines imposed, were upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in imposing the fines, and that there was no error in the trial judge's decision. The appellant's appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, and the convictions and fines imposed by the Magistrates Court were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against convictions dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.