Clark v Ryan - [2004] VSC 106

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4529 of 2004

GEOFF CLARK	Plaintiff
v
DETECTIVE SENIOR CONSTABLE C.F. RYAN and THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 April 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 April 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Clark v Ryan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 106

---

Judicial Review - County Court – whether jurisdictional error – whether error of law on the face of record – whether want of procedural fairness.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. Richter QC and Mr N. Clelland SC	Coadys
For the First Defendant	Mr John D. McArdle QC and Ms Claire Quin	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Second Defendant	No Appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Geoff Clark, was on 28 March 2003 convicted by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria sitting at Warrnambool of two charges arising out of certain incidents which occurred at the Criterion Hotel in Warrnambool on the evening of 2 May 2002. In fact, Mr Clark was charged with 19 offences, but only five were proceeded with before the Magistrate. Of these, three charges were dismissed and convictions were recorded on the remaining two. The first of these was that:

“The Defendant at Warrnambool on 2 May 2002 did obstruct a member of the Police Force, one Peter Nicholls a member of the Police Force in the execution of his duty contrary to s. 52(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966.”

The second was a charge of behaving in a riotous manner contrary to s. 17(1)(d) of the Summary Offences Act 1966.

Mr Clark brought an appeal to the County Court and on 4 December 2003 his appeal against the riotous behaviour conviction was allowed so that the charge was dismissed. With respect to the other charge, obstructing police, his appeal against conviction was dismissed so that the conviction stood; his appeal against sentence was successful in that the fine was reduced to $750.

Mr Clark has, by originating motion filed on 12 February 2004, sought relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to Order 56 against this County Court conviction. He seeks this relief on three grounds, jurisdictional error, error of law on the face of the record and a denial of procedural fairness. The second defendant, the County Court of Victoria, is joined as required by Rule 56.01(3) representing his Honour Judge White whose decision is subject to review. There was no appearance by the second defendant.

In order to understand the grounds relied upon, it is necessary that I outline briefly the circumstances of the incident. The charge of obstructing police arose out of an attempt by Sergeant Nicholls to remove from the Criterion Hotel one Jamie Chatfield who had been previously banned from the hotel. When Sergeant Nicholls arrived at the hotel there occurred the alleged incident which gave rise to the charge. In summary, the case for the informant was that…

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 Clark v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Clark v Ryan [2004] VSC 106
Case: [2004] VSC 106
Decision Date: 7 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clark v Ryan was heard in the County Court of Victoria and involved a challenge to the decision of a magistrate regarding the imposition of a sentence. The applicant, Clark, contested the validity of the sentence on several grounds, including the contention that the sentencing magistrate had made a jurisdictional error, an error of law apparent on the record, and a breach of procedural fairness. The applicant sought judicial review of the sentencing decision, arguing that the sentence was unlawful and should be quashed.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the magistrate's decision contained a jurisdictional error, whether there was an error of law evident on the face of the record, and whether there was a failure to observe procedural fairness during the sentencing process. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and not adequately justified by the circumstances of the case. The respondent, Ryan, maintained that the sentence was lawful and that the magistrate had properly exercised their discretion.

The court examined the sentencing remarks and the principles of sentencing, considering whether the magistrate had adhered to the statutory requirements and observed procedural fairness. The court found that the magistrate had not erred in law and had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The sentence was deemed proportionate to the offence, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness. The court concluded that the application for judicial review should be dismissed, as the magistrate had not made any jurisdictional or legal errors in imposing the sentence.

The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.

Orders