Davies v Ryan
Case
•
[1933] HCA 64
•4 December 1933
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Davies v Ryan [1933] HCA 64
[1933] HCA 64
4 December 1933
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from an order of dismissal made by the Court of Petty Sessions of the Territory for the Seat of Government. The appellant, a police officer, had laid an information against the respondent, a hotel licensee, alleging she supplied liquor during prohibited hours on her licensed premises contrary to the Liquor Ordinance 1929-1932 (F.C.T.). The magistrate dismissed the information on the ground that it did not disclose an offence.
The High Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of dismissal made by the Court of Petty Sessions under section 143(1) of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance (No. 2) 1930 (F.C.T.). Secondly, whether the information laid against the respondent was "sufficient in law" to disclose an offence under the relevant ordinances.
The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding that an order of dismissal under section 143(1) constituted an "order," "ruling," or "determination" within the meaning of sections 207 and 208 of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance, which conferred appellate jurisdiction on the High Court. Regarding the sufficiency of the information, the Court reasoned that section 27(2) of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance provided that an information following the exact words of the ordinance creating the offence would be sufficient in law. The information in this case alleged a single offence and used the language of the Liquor Ordinance, thus satisfying this requirement.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal, and remitted the matter to the Court of Petty Sessions to hear and determine the information. The Court noted that while the information was legally sufficient, it would be desirable for informants to provide further particulars, such as the identity of the person to whom liquor was supplied and the approximate time of supply, to assist the defendant in preparing their defence.
The High Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of dismissal made by the Court of Petty Sessions under section 143(1) of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance (No. 2) 1930 (F.C.T.). Secondly, whether the information laid against the respondent was "sufficient in law" to disclose an offence under the relevant ordinances.
The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding that an order of dismissal under section 143(1) constituted an "order," "ruling," or "determination" within the meaning of sections 207 and 208 of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance, which conferred appellate jurisdiction on the High Court. Regarding the sufficiency of the information, the Court reasoned that section 27(2) of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance provided that an information following the exact words of the ordinance creating the offence would be sufficient in law. The information in this case alleged a single offence and used the language of the Liquor Ordinance, thus satisfying this requirement.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal, and remitted the matter to the Court of Petty Sessions to hear and determine the information. The Court noted that while the information was legally sufficient, it would be desirable for informants to provide further particulars, such as the identity of the person to whom liquor was supplied and the approximate time of supply, to assist the defendant in preparing their defence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Costs
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Davies v Ryan [1933] HCA 64
Most Recent Citation
South Sydney City Council v BJ Metro Pty Limited [2003] NSWLEC 128
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Barnsley v Ulavalu
[2017] ACTMC 14
Guilfoyle v Niepe Construction Pty Ltd
[2023] QDC 40
Leo Muller Motors Pty Ltd v Bancroft
[2001] QDC 60
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0