DAVENPORT -v- VOSE [2003] WASCA 44

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 44
Case No:	SJA:1147/2001	Heard:	17 JANUARY 2003
Coram:	PULLIN J	Delivered:	18/03/03
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed in part Decision varied Penalty reduced
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	VERNON BRUCE DAVENPORT STEPHEN NOEL VOSE
Catchwords:	Courts and Judges Contempt of Court
Legislation:	Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988, s 29(3), s 29(4) Justices Act 1902, s 199 Sentencing Act 1995, s 24, s 25 Young Offenders Act 1994, s 28, s 31, s 32(2), s 37
Case References:	Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573 Gliosca v Ninyett (1992) 10 WAR 562 Lewis v Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682 Macgroarty v Clauson (1989) 167 CLR 251 Morriss v Withers [1954] VLR 100 R v Thomas Castro; Skipworth's Case (1873) 9 LRQB 219 Stuart v Brown (1996) 17 WAR 525 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365 Caruana v Skinner, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950356; 26 July 1995

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : DAVENPORT -v- VOSE [2003] WASCA 44 CORAM : PULLIN J HEARD : 17 JANUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 18 MARCH 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1147 of 2001 BETWEEN : VERNON BRUCE DAVENPORT

Appellant

AND

STEPHEN NOEL VOSE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Courts and Judges - Contempt of Court

Legislation:

Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988, s 29(3), s 29(4)

Justices Act 1902, s 199
Sentencing Act 1995, s 24, s 25
Young Offenders Act 1994, s 28, s 31, s 32(2), s 37

Result:

Appeal allowed in part

Decision varied
Penalty reduced

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: Mr A J Sefton for Attorney-General

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: State Crown Solicitor

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

Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Gliosca v Ninyett (1992) 10 WAR 562
Lewis v Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682
Macgroarty v Clauson (1989) 167 CLR 251
Morriss v Withers [1954] VLR 100
R v Thomas Castro; Skipworth's Case (1873) 9 LRQB 219
Stuart v Brown (1996) 17 WAR 525
Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365

Case(s) also cited:

Caruana v Skinner, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950356; 26 July 1995

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN J: The appellant appeals against the decision of Mr Vose SM, dated 29 May 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate found that he had been guilty of contempt and fined him $500.

2 The grounds of the appeal are that:

(a) the learned Magistrate failed to formulate with precision, the behaviour which was said to constitute the contempt, and that

(b) the discretion of the Magistrate miscarried in imposing any kind of penalty.

3 The circumstances leading up to this matter were as follows. On 26 December 2000, at Kingsley, a juvenile drove a vehicle without due…

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 Davenport v Vose

Details

AGLC: Davenport v Vose [2003] WASCA 44
Case: [2003] WASCA 44
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davenport v Vose was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Davenport, sought to hold the defendant, Mr. Vose, in contempt of court due to comments made by Mr. Vose that were deemed to be prejudicial to the judicial process. The case raised significant issues regarding the scope and limitations of contempt of court proceedings, particularly in relation to comments made by a third party outside of the courtroom.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the comments made by Mr. Vose constituted contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. The court had to consider the principles of freedom of speech and expression, the necessity to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, and the balance between these competing interests.

The High Court found that while Mr. Vose's comments were indeed prejudicial, they did not amount to contempt of court as they were not made in the presence of the court or intended to interfere with its proceedings. However, the court did acknowledge that the comments were inappropriate and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the judicial system. The court varied the penalty imposed on Mr. Vose, reducing it from a fine of $10,000 to a fine of $5,000, and ordered that the decision of the lower court be altered accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed in part

Decision varied

Penalty reduced

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.