Coleman v DPP - [2002] VSC 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 8756 of 2002

JASON COLEMAN	Plaintiff
v.
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND ANOTHER	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 JANUARY 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 FEBRUARY 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	COLEMAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND ANOR.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 10

---

CATCHWORDS: Certiorari – Allegation of want of jurisdiction – Offence punishable by imprisonment – Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 ss.73(1) and 75, Sentencing Act 1991 s.31(1) – No lack of jurisdiction.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. S. Johns	Victoria Legal Aid
For the First Defendant	Mr. J.D. McArdle Q.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 11 January 2001 the plaintiff Jason Coleman appeared before the Magistrates' Court at Ballarat charged with one count of obtaining property by deception and one count of causing criminal damage. He was convicted of each charge. In respect of the charge of obtaining property by deception he was sentenced to a term of two months' imprisonment. In respect of the charge of causing criminal damage he was placed on a 12 month Community Based Order.

The plaintiff appealed to the County Court in respect of the convictions and sentences. The appeal came before his Honour Judge Crossley at Ballarat on 21 February 2001. As his Honour was required to do by the provisions of s.86(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, his Honour set aside the orders of the Magistrates' Court then re-convicted the plaintiff of each charge. He then sentenced the plaintiff to a period of two months' imprisonment in respect of the charge of obtaining property by deception but wholly suspended the sentence for a period of 12 months, and placed the plaintiff on a Community Based Order in respect of the charge of causing criminal damage.

On 6 September 2001 the plaintiff appeared before the Magistrates' Court at Ballarat charged with possession of a drug of dependence, namely cannabis, and use of a drug of dependence namely cannabis. The plaintiff pleaded guilty to both charges.

The prosecution then proceeded to read the following summary of the police evidence in relation to the charges to the Magistrate:

"Your Worship at approximately 7.25 a.m. on Friday 6 July of this year the police attended at the address of 32 Albert Street, Sebastopol and there executed a search warrant issued under the Drugs Enforcement Control Substances Act. After gaining entry to the premises the police gave the defendant Coleman an opportunity to declare location of any illegal substances in the house prior to searching the property. Coleman then removed from a cigarette packet that was sitting on the bedside table a piece of silver foil containing a small quantity of cannabis. Police took possession of that, search of the address was conducted and located other items that were not relevant to this defendant and another male that resides at this…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coleman v DPP and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] VSC 10
Decision Date: 15 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Coleman v DPP was before the court in relation to an allegation of want of jurisdiction concerning an offence punishable by imprisonment. The respondent, Coleman, sought a writ of certiorari, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him for the offence as it was punishable by imprisonment. The primary statutes in question were sections 73(1) and 75 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and section 31(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter and if there was indeed a lack of jurisdiction as claimed by the respondent.

The legal issue at the core of this case was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the respondent for the offence, given the assertion that it was punishable by imprisonment. The respondent argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the offence was not categorised as a summary offence, but rather a punishable offence that should have been tried in a higher court. The court needed to examine the statutory provisions and determine whether the trial court's jurisdiction was correctly exercised.

The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions in question and found that there was no lack of jurisdiction in the trial court's handling of the case. The court held that the trial court had the requisite jurisdiction to try the respondent for the offence. The statutory provisions outlined in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the Sentencing Act 1991 did not prevent the trial court from exercising its jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the respondent's claim of want of jurisdiction was dismissed by the court.

The court ordered that the writ of certiorari sought by the respondent be quashed, and it was determined that there was no lack of jurisdiction in the trial court's handling of the case. The decision underscored the importance of understanding and correctly applying statutory provisions in determining jurisdiction in criminal cases. The court's ruling ensured that the trial court's jurisdiction was upheld, and the respondent's claim was dismissed.

Orders