JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 December 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 January 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Harkness v Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 10

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Application for declaration conferring jurisdiction on County Court to hear appeal – Plaintiff convicted of traffic offences in Magistrates’ Court – Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law – Appeal ultimately dismissed by Court of Appeal – Plaintiff then sought to appeal convictions to County Court – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 273 provides that a person who appeals to the Supreme Court on a question of law ‘abandons finally and conclusively’ any right to appeal to County Court in relation to that proceeding – County Court appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction – Whether the Supreme Court can confer jurisdiction on County Court despite statute plainly barring further right of appeal – Whether Plaintiff’s appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law ought to be considered an application for judicial review – Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 273 in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), s 32(1) – Proceeding dismissed – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 254, 272(1), 273; Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), s 32(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr D Glynn	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

On 17 June 2016, Zenaan Harkness appeared before the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Seymour for a contested hearing of seven traffic offences – four charges of unlicensed driving, two charges of driving an unregistered vehicle, and one charge of failing to comply with a notice requiring the surrender of a motor vehicle. Mr Harkness had previously filed a statement objecting to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court.

At the start of the hearing, the magistrate told Mr Harkness that she would dismiss his objection to jurisdiction. His subsequent disruptive and disrespectful behaviour caused the magistrate to have him excluded from the courtroom. The hearing proceeded in his absence, and he was convicted of six of the charges.[1] The magistrate imposed fines of $350 for each offence of unlicensed driving, $750 for each offence of driving an unregistered vehicle, and $500 for the offence of failing to comply with the surrender vehicle notice. The aggregate amount of the fines imposed was $3,050.
[1]The seventh, a charge of unlicensed driving, was dismissed because the prosecution led no evidence.

On 7 July 2016, Mr Harkness filed a notice of appeal in this Court, against the orders of the Magistrates’ Court made on 17 June 2016. His appeal was brought under s 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), which provides for an appeal to…

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 Harkness v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Harkness v Roberts [2023] VSC 10
Case: [2023] VSC 10
Decision Date: 20 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in this case, Harkness, sought a declaration from the County Court of Victoria that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against traffic offence convictions. Harkness was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff then sought to appeal to the County Court, but the County Court struck out the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Harkness argued that the Supreme Court could confer jurisdiction on the County Court, despite the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 273, which states that an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law bars any further right of appeal to the County Court. Alternatively, Harkness claimed that his appeal to the Supreme Court should be considered an application for judicial review, which could be made under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), s 32(1).

The court had to determine whether the Supreme Court could confer jurisdiction on the County Court, despite the statutory bar on further appeal. Additionally, the court needed to decide if Harkness' appeal to the Supreme Court should be treated as an application for judicial review. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered the interpretation of these provisions in light of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), s 32(1). The court held that the statutory language of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 273 was clear and unambiguous, and thus Harkness’ appeal to the Supreme Court was not an application for judicial review. The court also found that there was no authority allowing the Supreme Court to confer jurisdiction on the County Court over Harkness’ appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The County Court had no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's appeal, and the appeal was struck out. The court held that the statutory bar on further appeal to the County Court was clear and could not be circumvented by treating the Supreme Court appeal as an application for judicial review. The court dismissed the proceeding and upheld the statutory provisions as they stood.

Orders