Groom v Police (No 3)

The case of Groom v Police (No 3) involved the appellant, Groom, appealing against an order of a magistrate which confirmed an intervention order made under the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA). The appellant had initially consented to the order under section 23(3) of the Act. The appeal was lodged beyond the prescribed time limit, and Groom sought an extension of time to appeal under rule 295(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA). The legal issues before the court were whether an appeal from a confirmation order is governed by section 40 or section 42 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA), whether a confirmation order is of an interlocutory nature, and whether Groom should be allowed to withdraw his consent to the order.

The court held that an appeal from a confirmation order must be brought under section 42 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA), as a confirmation order is interlocutory in nature. The court compared an application to withdraw consent given under section 23(3) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) to an application to withdraw a civil admission. The court found that Groom's consent was given in circumstances where he considered he had no satisfactory alternative. Additionally, the respondent would not suffer any injustice if Groom was permitted to withdraw his consent. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court.