Culleton v Australian Financial Security Authority - [2021] WASC 274

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   CULLETON -v- AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY [2021] WASC 274
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   17 MAY 2021
DELIVERED          :   13 AUGUST 2021
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1052 of 2019
BETWEEN:   RODNEY NORMAN CULLETON
Appellant
AND
AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY
Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against conviction - Jurisdiction of court - Standing of prosecutor - No merit in appeal

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not Applicable
Respondent	:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Austic v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 75
Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Culleton [2016] FCA 1578
Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 8
Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] HCATrans 41
Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 313
Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Tsang v Francis [2021] WASCA 131
Walden v Hensler [1987] HCA 54; (1987) 163 CLR 561

ARCHER J:

Introduction

Mr Culleton seeks to appeal against his conviction of an offence against s 54(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The offence was that he, 'being a person against whose estate a sequestration order had been made, did fail, within fourteen days from the day on which he was notified of the bankruptcy, to make out and file with the official receiver for the district in which the sequestration order was made, a statement of his affairs and furnish a copy of the statement to the trustee'.
Mr Culleton was convicted on 3 April 2019 after trial.

Grounds of appeal

Mr Culleton's grounds of appeal are (typographical errors corrected):
1.no jurisdiction
2.matter sitting part heard in the House under motion 163 waiting final determination under s 47 Constitution
3.Australian Financial Security Authority had no standing to bring any form of prosecution as the bankruptcy notice issued was irregular and was done so on a falsehood by a purported creditor being Mr Richard Lester on behalf of Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd as that order was statute barred in October 2014 through a prior bankruptcy
4.The magistrate ignored the evidence from the prosecutor's witnesses in relation to the 'Stay' of all proceedings 21 days and beyond and was precluded from applying s 54(1) Bankruptcy Act 1966 to conviction which apply within 14 days (strict liability)
5.His Honour ignored mens rea and ss 9.1 and 9.2 Criminal CodeAct 1995

Legal principles - appeals from magistrates' decisions[1]

[1] This section reproduces statements I have made in other decisions.

The grounds on which appeals may be brought against a conviction by a magistrate are that the magistrate made an error of law or fact (or both), or acted without or in…

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 Culleton v Australian Financial Security Authority

Details

AGLC: Culleton v Australian Financial Security Authority [2021] WASC 274
Case: [2021] WASC 274
Decision Date: 13 AUGUST 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Culleton v Australian Financial Security Authority, the respondent sought leave to appeal against a decision made by a lower court. The case involved a conviction related to a dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the court and the standing of the prosecutor. The decision was made by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the appeal had merit and whether the respondent had standing to bring the appeal. The court was also required to determine whether the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the court.

The court found that the appeal had no merit and that the respondent did not have standing to bring the appeal. The court held that the appeal was not within its jurisdiction and that there was no error in the decision of the lower court. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The court's decision was final and binding on the parties involved in the dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused and appeal 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.