HART -v- WATT [2015] WASC 338
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 338 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2117/2015 | 4 SEPTEMBER 2015 | |
| Coram: | PRITCHARD J | 11/09/15 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Declarations granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LEONARD HART TANYA ROCHELLE WATT |
Catchwords: | Magistrates Jurisdiction and powers Whether Magistrate acted without jurisdiction Plaintiff required to submit to breath test Plaintiff remanded in custody for purposes of breath test Breath test results admitted into evidence |
Legislation: | Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 35, s 36 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 66 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56, O 58 |
Case References: | Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564 Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (1978) 141 CLR 54 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61; (1972) 127 CLR 421 Furesh (as administrator of Intestate Estate of Slipcevich) v Schor [2013] WASCA 231; (2013) 45 WAR 546 Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 308 ALR 252 Levy v State of Victoria [1997] HCA 31; (1997) 189 CLR 579 O'Brien v Northern Territory of Australia [No 2] (2003) 173 FLR 455 QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd v Lois Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 186 Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203 Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd [2011] HCA 54; (2011) 248 CLR 37 Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB & SMB [1992] HCA 15; (1992) 175 CLR 218 Thompson v McIntyre SM [2006] WASC 218 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
TANYA ROCHELLE WATT
Defendant
Catchwords:
Magistrates - Jurisdiction and powers - Whether Magistrate acted without jurisdiction - Plaintiff required to submit to breath test - Plaintiff remanded in custody for purposes of breath test - Breath test results admitted into evidence
Legislation:
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 35, s 36
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 66
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56, O 58
Result:
Declarations granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr D Brunello
Defendant : No appearance
Amicus Curiae : Mr G Tannin SC
Amicus Curiae : Ms K Pedersen
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
Defendant : No appearance
Amicus Curiae : Attorney General (WA)
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor's Office (WA)
Cases referred to in judgment:
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (1978) 141 CLR 54
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61; (1972) 127 CLR 421
Furesh (as administrator of Intestate Estate of Slipcevich) v Schor [2013] WASCA 231; (2013) 45 WAR 546
Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20
Continue reading Hart v Watt
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hart v Watt [2015] WASC 338
- Case
- [2015] WASC 338
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Hart v Watt, the plaintiff sought to challenge the decision of a Magistrate to order them to submit to a breath test while in custody. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the Magistrate acted beyond their jurisdiction by ordering the breath test and that the results of the test should be excluded from evidence. The Magistrate had ordered the plaintiff to submit to a breath test, which was subsequently conducted while the plaintiff was in custody. The results of the breath test were then admitted into evidence by the Magistrate in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to submit to a breath test while in custody and, if so, whether the results of the test were admissible in evidence.
The court found that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to submit to a breath test while in custody. The court held that the Magistrates Court of Victoria had the power to order a breath test under the relevant legislation, and that this power extended to situations where the person was in custody. The court also found that the results of the breath test were admissible in evidence. The court held that the breath test results were properly admitted into evidence and could be relied upon by the prosecution in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the results of the breath test should be excluded from evidence on the basis that the Magistrate had acted beyond their jurisdiction. The court found that the Magistrate had acted within their jurisdiction and that the results of the breath test were properly admitted into evidence.
The court granted the declarations sought by the plaintiff. The court found that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to submit to a breath test while in custody and that the results of the test were admissible in evidence. The court held that the Magistrates Court of Victoria had the power to order a breath test under the relevant legislation and that this power extended to situations where the person was in custody. The court also found that the results of the breath test were properly admitted into evidence and could be relied upon by the prosecution in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the results of the breath test should be excluded from evidence on the basis that the Magistrate had acted beyond their jurisdiction. The court held that the Magistrate had acted within their jurisdiction and that the results of the breath test were properly admitted into evidence. The court granted the declarations sought by the plaintiff.
The court found that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to submit to a breath test while in custody. The court held that the Magistrates Court of Victoria had the power to order a breath test under the relevant legislation, and that this power extended to situations where the person was in custody. The court also found that the results of the breath test were admissible in evidence. The court held that the breath test results were properly admitted into evidence and could be relied upon by the prosecution in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the results of the breath test should be excluded from evidence on the basis that the Magistrate had acted beyond their jurisdiction. The court found that the Magistrate had acted within their jurisdiction and that the results of the breath test were properly admitted into evidence.
The court granted the declarations sought by the plaintiff. The court found that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to submit to a breath test while in custody and that the results of the test were admissible in evidence. The court held that the Magistrates Court of Victoria had the power to order a breath test under the relevant legislation and that this power extended to situations where the person was in custody. The court also found that the results of the breath test were properly admitted into evidence and could be relied upon by the prosecution in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the results of the breath test should be excluded from evidence on the basis that the Magistrate had acted beyond their jurisdiction. The court held that the Magistrate had acted within their jurisdiction and that the results of the breath test were properly admitted into evidence. The court granted the declarations sought by the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Declarations granted
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.