Farran v Gee

This case involved an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Michael Joseph Farran, had been convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions at Paddington for pretending to be a dispensing chemist, contrary to section 17 of the *Pharmacy Act 1897* (N.S.W.). The informant, Samuel Gee, an Inspector for the Pharmacy Board, alleged that Farran, who was not a registered pharmacist, had dispensed medicine from his shop, which displayed signage and advertised products typically associated with a chemist. Farran was fined £20, and a subsequent rule nisi for prohibition obtained from the Supreme Court was discharged.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether there was sufficient evidence to support Farran's conviction for pretending to be a dispensing chemist within the meaning of the *Pharmacy Act 1897*, and whether the Supreme Court had erred in discharging the rule nisi. Specifically, the appellant argued that the word "pretends" in section 17 implied a false pretence and that carrying on the business of a chemist, even by an unregistered person, did not constitute such a pretence. The appellant contended that the Act's purpose was to prevent public deception, not to prohibit unregistered individuals from conducting a chemist's business if they possessed the requisite knowledge.

The High Court, in a judgment delivered by Barton A.C.J., found no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court implicitly accepted the Supreme Court's interpretation that Farran's actions, which included dispensing medicine from a shop appearing to be a chemist's and labelling it with his name and directions, constituted pretending to be a dispensing chemist as ordinarily understood. The Court's refusal of special leave to appeal meant that the conviction stood.