Haughton v Chapman

[2019] SASC 200

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

HAUGHTON v CHAPMAN

[2019] SASC 200

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Kelly

22 November 2019

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS

Appeal against dismissal of Magistrates Court Information.

Where the appellant was the private informant on an Information and Summons filed in the Magistrates Court alleging the respondent had committed misprision of treason - where the Information was deemed defective and the alleged particulars to have no basis of law and to amount to an abuse of process - where the Information was dismissed by the Magistrate.

Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the Information - whether the Magistrate had the power to dismiss the Information - whether the appeal should be summarily dismissed.

Held:  The appeal is summarily dismissed.

Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 181(2)(b); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 295(1)(h), referred to.
Haughton v Roder [2019] SASC 199, discussed.

HAUGHTON v CHAPMAN
[2019] SASC 200

Magistrates Appeal:   Criminal

KELLY J.

Introduction

1. The appellant, Peter Scott Haughton, appeals the decision of a Magistrate on 12 September 2019 to dismiss an Information and Summons filed on 13 August 2019 alleging that the respondent, Vickie Chapman, the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, had committed the criminal offence of “misprision of treason”. 

2. The matter was listed for first return in the Christies Beach Magistrates Court on 19 September 2019 at 2.15pm. 

3. On 10 September 2019 the Crown Solicitor, who was instructed by the respondent, filed an application to have the Information dismissed pursuant to s 181(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) or, in the alternative, to have the proceedings stayed as an abuse of process.

4. On 12 September 2019, the Magistrate had the matter brought forward by one week for hearing and dismissed the Information along with the respondent’s application for dismissal pursuant to s 181(2)(b), as it had become unnecessary. On the same date, the Magistrate also dismissed another related criminal Information lodged by the appellant against a different defendant. In respect of the order for dismissal on that matter, against which the appellant also appealed to this Court, I have this day delivered judgment.[1] 

   [1]    Haughton v Roder [2019] SASC 199.

   Discussion

5. The respondent was represented by the Crown Solicitor on the hearing of this appeal.

6. The appellant on appeal relies on very similar and some identical grounds of appeal which I have already set out in full in the related appeal of Haughton v Roder.[2]  It is unnecessary to deal with each of the appellant’s appeal grounds again as those appeal grounds have been comprehensively dealt with in the matter of Haughton v Roder.

   [2] [2019] SASC 199.

7. In accordance with the respondent’s submissions on appeal, and for the same reasons which I gave in Haughton v Roder, I am of the view that this appeal should be summarily dismissed pursuant to rule 295(1)(h) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006.

8. The Magistrate was correct to dismiss the Information.  There was no offence committed by dismissing the Information as the proceedings brought in the court below disclosed no reasonable cause of action and are, in my view, both frivolous and vexatious as well as being an abuse of the process of the Court.

9. The appeal is summarily dismissed.