Carberry v Cook

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Mr Cook, a publican, had been charged with an offence under the Liquor Act 1898 (NSW) at the Court of Petty Sessions in Glen Innes. The magistrate dismissed the information, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the Glen Innes Court of Petty Sessions was the nearest court to the place where the alleged offence occurred, as required by section 107 of the Liquor Act.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the magistrate erred in law by failing to take judicial notice of the geographical location of the Glen Innes Court of Petty Sessions relative to the offence, and whether section 20 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) placed the onus on the defendant to prove that the court was not the nearest. The Supreme Court, by majority, held that the magistrate should have taken judicial notice of the fact that the court was the nearest, and that section 20 of the Justices Act shifted the onus to the defendant to prove otherwise.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal. Griffith CJ stated that the Supreme Court's decision on the question of judicial notice was "plainly right," as it was unreasonable to expect a magistrate sitting in a particular town to not know that their court was the nearest to that town. Consequently, the High Court found that no substantial question of law regarding the construction of section 20 of the Justices Act was involved, rendering the appeal unnecessary.