Haughton v Roder - [2019] SASC 199

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
HAUGHTON v RODER
[2019] SASC 199
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 common law fraud - 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: It is obvious the appeal cannot succeed. The appeal is summarily dismissed.
Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 181(2)(b); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 295(1)(h); Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 110C(1); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 9, referred to.
Ryan v Doudle & Ors [2019] SASC 155; R v Skinner (1772) Lofft 54; 98 ER 529; D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; Wunsch v South Australian Police (1995) 64 SASR 203; Gray v Police (2003) 85 SASR 1, applied.
Haughton v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2019] SASC 198, discussed.
Glew v Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 123; Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw [2007] VSC 148; Daniels v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] SASC 114, considered.

HAUGHTON v RODER
[2019] SASC 199
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
KELLY J.
Introduction

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, Steve Roder, an Auxiliary Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia, had committed the criminal offence of “common law fraud”.
The matter was first listed in the Christies Beach Magistrates Court on 12 September 2019 at 2.15 pm. On that date, the Magistrate dismissed the Information, stating as follows:
Mr Haughton, these proceedings today are being recorded. Today is the first of two Information’s that you have recently filed in this court and this court, this Magistrate, has formed a very strong view in relation to both of them and I want you to know what that view is and how I intend to proceed today.
I note your attendance in relation to file MCCHB-19-3867 where you are the private Informant. The non-attendance of the defendant and/or anyone on his behalf is excused. Having considered the contents of the Information, this court is firmly of the view that the Information is defective and the alleged particulars have no basis at law and amount to an abuse of process. Accordingly,…

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 Haughton v Roder

Details

AGLC: Haughton v Roder [2019] SASC 199
Case: [2019] SASC 199
Decision Date: 22 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Supreme Court involved Haughton, the appellant, and Roder, the respondent. The case arose from an application by the appellant to stay criminal proceedings against him on the basis of abuse of process. The matter was initially heard in the Magistrates Court of South Australia, and the appeal was brought before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the Magistrates Court erred in denying his application to stay the proceedings against him.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates Court had the authority to grant a stay of criminal proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process, and if so, whether it had applied the correct legal principles in denying the appellant's application. The appellant argued that the Magistrates Court should have stayed the proceedings due to the alleged abuse of process by the respondent, which he claimed included misrepresentations and improper conduct. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Magistrates Court had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the stay.

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrates Court does indeed have the inherent jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings in cases of abuse of process. However, the court found that the Magistrates Court had not applied the correct legal principles in denying the appellant's application. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrates Court had failed to adequately consider the evidence and arguments presented by the appellant regarding the alleged abuse of process. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Magistrates Court for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court did not make any final orders but directed that the Magistrates Court reassess the application for a stay based on the principles elucidated by the Supreme Court.

Orders