FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ
Matter No M102/2010
KEVIN JOHN DICKSON APPELLANT
AND
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
Matter No M11/2009
KEVIN JOHN DICKSON APPLICANT
AND
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
Dickson v The Queen [2010] HCA 30 22 September 2010 M102/2010 & M11/2009
ORDER
Matter No M102/2010
1. Appeal allowed.
2.Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 18 December 2008 and, in lieu thereof, order that:
(a)leave to appeal to that Court against conviction and sentence be granted;
(b) the appeal to that Court be allowed; and
(c)the presentment preferred against the appellant and his conviction entered on 21 February 2008 be quashed, and the sentence imposed on 17 April 2008 be set aside.
Matter No M11/2009
Application for special leave to appeal dismissed in relation to the remaining proposed grounds of appeal.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria
Representation
T F Danos with J E McLoughlin for the applicant (instructed by Tony Danos Solicitor) at the hearing on 27 July 2010
T F Danos with P D Herzfeld for the appellant/applicant (instructed by Tony Danos Solicitor) at the hearing on 31 August 2010
G J C Silbert SC with B L Sonnet for the respondent (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic))
Interveners
S J Gageler SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with K C Morgan intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth in M102/2010 (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
M G Hinton QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with S A McDonald intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia in M102/2010 (instructed by Crown Solicitor (SA))
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Dickson v The Queen
Constitutional law – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Direct inconsistency – Appellant convicted under State law of conspiracy to steal property belonging to a company – Commonwealth law made conspiracy to steal property belonging to Commonwealth an offence – Property stolen belonged to Commonwealth within meaning of Commonwealth law – Whether State law inconsistent with Commonwealth law – Whether State law altered, impaired or detracted from operation of Commonwealth law – Discussion of indirect inconsistency and intention to cover the field.
Words and phrases – "conspiracy".
Constitution, s 109. Crimes Act1914 (Cth), s 4C. Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5, 131.1, 261.1. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 72, 321.
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ. On 21 February 2008 the appellant was convicted at a trial in the County Court of Victoria upon a presentment by the Director of Public Prosecutions of Victoria ("the Director"), who prosecuted on behalf of the Crown in right of Victoria[1]. The presentment stated the offence as conspiracy to steal contrary to s 321(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ("the Victorian Crimes Act"). Section 321(1) states:
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 Dickson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dickson v The Queen [2010] HCA 30
Case
[2010] HCA 30
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Dickson v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered a constitutional law dispute concerning the potential inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law. The appellant had been convicted under a Victorian law of conspiracy to steal property. The central question was whether this conviction, under State law, was rendered invalid by a Commonwealth law that criminalised conspiracy to steal property belonging to the Commonwealth, where the property in question was indeed Commonwealth property.
The High Court was required to determine whether the State law, under which the appellant was convicted, was inconsistent with the Commonwealth law. Specifically, the Court had to assess whether the operation of the State law, by convicting the appellant for an act that also constituted an offence under Commonwealth law, altered, impaired, or detracted from the effectiveness of the Commonwealth law. This involved considering the principles of direct inconsistency and the concept of a law intending to cover the field.
The Court reasoned that a direct inconsistency arises when it is impossible to obey both laws, or when a State law permits or requires something that a Commonwealth law forbids. In this instance, the Court found that the State law did not create an impossibility of obedience, nor did it permit conduct forbidden by the Commonwealth law. However, the Court held that the State law did impair or detract from the operation of the Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth law evinced an intention to exclusively regulate conspiracies involving Commonwealth property, and the existence of a parallel State offence created an unacceptable interference with this legislative purpose. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the appellant's conviction and sentence, and set aside the orders of the Victorian Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Matter No M102/2010
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 18 December 2008 and, in lieu thereof, order that:
(a) leave to appeal to that Court against conviction and sentence be granted;
(b) the appeal to that Court be allowed; and
(c) the presentment preferred against the appellant and his conviction entered on 21 February 2008 be quashed, and the sentence imposed on 17 April 2008 be set aside.
Matter No M11/2009
Application for special leave to appeal dismissed in relation to the remaining proposed grounds of appeal.
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
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ