DANIELS v Coombe - [2004] SASC 203

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Civil)
DANIELS v COOMBE
Judgment of The Honourable Justice White (ex tempore)
7 July 2004
PROCEDURE - COSTS - APPEALS AS TO COSTS - DISCRETION
Appeal against Magistrate's decision with respect to costs - Appellant raised constitutional issues at trial - Respondent engaged solicitors and counsel at trial - Statutory power to award costs in summary criminal proceedings - Costs not shown to be manifestly excessive - Appeal dismissed.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42; Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA) s 33; Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 189; Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B, referred to.
SA Police v Leonard (1995) 64 SASR 390; Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, applied.
Joosse v ASIC (1998) 159 ALR 260, distinguished.
Moore-McQuillan v Police (Debelle J, 27 November 1998, Unreported); Haslam v Emu Air Charter Pty Ltd (1998) 200 LSJS 454; Worth v Police [1998] SASC 6674, considered.

DANIELS v COOMBE
[2004] SASC 203
Magistrates Appeal (ex tempore)

WHITE J This is an appeal, pursuant to s 42 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991, against an order for costs made by a Magistrate.
The appellant was charged on a complaint made on 2 September 2003 with 19 offences. Each count alleged a breach of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995, which, in these reasons, I will call simply “the Act”.
Count 1 alleged that the appellant, as an occupier of premises at Strathalbyn had, on 15 October 2002, contrary to s 33(1) and s 33(2) of the Act, kept a dog, Pebbles, which was not registered. Counts 2 to 18 alleged the same offence, in respect of the same dog, in respect of the same premises, and in respect of each successive period of 14 days in the period 16 October 2002 to 14 July 2003 inclusive. Count 19 alleged the keeping of Pebbles whilst unregistered at the same premises, in the period since 15 July 2003, contrary to s 33(1) and s 33(3) of the Act.
The charges were heard by a Magistrate in the Mount Barker Magistrates Court on 16 April 2004. The appellant was then unrepresented, as he was on the hearing of this appeal.
At the commencement of the hearing, counts 2 to 10 inclusive were withdrawn, apparently on the basis that the proceedings in respect of those counts had not been instituted within the relevant time fixed by s 52 of the Summary Procedure Act 1921. The appellant declined to enter formal pleas to the remaining counts. The Magistrate proceeded as if he had entered pleas of not guilty.
The prosecution led evidence from Mr Coombe, who was the complainant and also the Chief Executive Officer of the Alexandrina Council, the entity responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act in that part of Strathalbyn which included the appellant’s property.
In addition, evidence was adduced from the Council’s Dog Management Officer, Mr Hill, and from Ms Cowan,…

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 DANIELS v Coombe

Details

AGLC: DANIELS v Coombe [2004] SASC 203
Case: [2004] SASC 203
Decision Date: 7 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a dispute over costs between Daniels, the appellant, and Coombe, the respondent. The original matter was a criminal proceeding heard summarily in a lower court. The appellant had raised constitutional issues during the trial, while the respondent had engaged solicitors and counsel. The lower court's decision on costs was now under appeal. The central legal issue was whether the magistrate's decision on costs was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the constitutional issues raised and the engagement of legal representatives by the respondent.

The court considered the statutory framework governing costs in summary criminal proceedings, recognising the broad discretion afforded to magistrates in such matters. The appellant argued that the costs awarded were manifestly excessive, but the court found no basis to support this claim. The engagement of solicitors and counsel by the respondent was deemed reasonable given the complexity of the constitutional issues raised by the appellant. The court emphasised that the discretion exercised by the magistrate in awarding costs was within the bounds of reasonableness, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs in the appellate court. The decision underscored the deference owed to the magistrate's discretion in awarding costs in summary criminal proceedings, particularly where constitutional issues are involved and legal representation is engaged by the opposing party. The court's ruling reaffirmed the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to cost awards in such proceedings, ensuring that the discretion exercised is both fair and reasonable.

Orders