HAYNES -v- HUGHES [2001] WASCA 397

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 397
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)	Published:	07/12/2001
Case No:	SJA:1232/2000	Heard:	23 OCTOBER 2001
Coram:	MURRAY J ANDERSON J EINFELD AJ	Delivered:	7/12/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal Dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	ROGER HAYNES PETER LINDSAY FOSTER HUGHES
Catchwords:	Criminal law Particular offence Using computer service to obtain objectionable material Words and phrases "Obtain possession of an article knowing it to be objectionable material" Email message saved to work directory Whether "obtained" when first received or when saved Whether offence committed by saving
Legislation:	Censorship Act 1996 (WA), s 99, s 101(1)(b)
Case References:	Nil Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569 Daniels v Burfield (1994) 125 ALR 33 Davis v The Queen (1990) 5 WAR 269 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Ibbs v The Queen [2001] WASCA 129 R v Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417 Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 527 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HAYNES -v- HUGHES [2001] WASCA 397 CORAM : MURRAY J

ANDERSON J

EINFELD AJ

HEARD : 23 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 7 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1232 of 2000 BETWEEN : ROGER HAYNES

Appellant

AND

PETER LINDSAY FOSTER HUGHES

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Particular offence - Using computer service to obtain objectionable material - Words and phrases - "Obtain possession of an article knowing it to be objectionable material" - Email message saved to work directory - Whether "obtained" when first received or when saved - Whether offence committed by saving

Legislation:

Censorship Act 1996 (WA), s 99, s 101(1)(b)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal Dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms C J Thatcher

Respondent : Mr A O Karstaedt

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : Max Crispe

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569
Daniels v Burfield (1994) 125 ALR 33
Davis v The Queen (1990) 5 WAR 269
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Ibbs v The Queen [2001] WASCA 129
R v Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417
Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 527
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: In this matter I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for decision to be published by Anderson J. I respectfully agree with them in their entirety and I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. In my respectful opinion, the point upon which Roberts-Smith J decided the appeal made to him by the complainant was correct.

2 The matter turns on the proper interpretation of the Censorship Act 1996 (WA). The offence charged in the complaint…

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 Haynes v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 397
Case: [2001] WASCA 397
Decision Date: 07/12/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haynes v Hughes, the appellant was charged with using a computer service to obtain objectionable material. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the phrase "obtain possession of an article knowing it to be objectionable material" and whether the offence was committed when the objectionable material was first received or when it was subsequently saved to a work directory. The matter was determined by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the act of saving an email containing objectionable material to a work directory constituted obtaining possession of the material. The court considered whether "obtained" referred to the initial receipt of the material or to the act of saving it. The court also needed to determine whether the act of saving the material constituted an offence under the relevant statute.

The court held that the phrase "obtain possession of an article knowing it to be objectionable material" was intended to capture the act of obtaining possession of the material, regardless of whether it was saved or not. The court emphasised that the offence was complete once the material was received, even if it was not subsequently saved. The court concluded that saving the material did not constitute an additional offence but was merely a continuation of the original act of obtaining possession. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal Dismissed

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.