Haynes v Hughes - [2001] WASCA 169

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HAYNES -v- HUGHES [2001] WASCA 169

CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD: 9 MAY 2001

DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2001

FILE NO/S: SJA 1232 of 2000

BETWEEN: ROGER HAYNES
Appellant
AND
PETER LINDSAY FOSTER HUGHES
Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Costs of appeal - Grounds of appeal made out but appeal dismissed because no substantial miscarriage of justice - Relationship between costs provisions of Justices Act 1902 (WA) and Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA)

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(g), s 219

Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA), s 4, s 5, s 9

Result:

Application for costs granted
Respondent awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $4815

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms J C Pritchard
Respondent: Mr A O Karstaedt

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Crown Solicitor
Respondent: Max Crispe

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

Bolton v Stange [2001] WASCA 34
Green v Espinoza, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 980234; 6 May 1998
Haddon & Anor v Everitt on behalf of the Commissioner for Police [2000] WASCA 53
Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 146
Klahn v Talbot (1995) 83 A Crim R 535
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Mancini v Ward (1997) 93 A Crim R 456
O'Dea v Fletcher, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 920666; 20 November 1992
Perry v The Queen [1975] WAR 33
Williams v Beverly & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 980474; 24 August 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

ROBERTS-SMITH J: On 9 May 2001 I handed down judgment (Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 146) on an appeal by a police officer complainant against the decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate sitting in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions on 23 November 2000 whereby her Worship dismissed a charge against the respondent that on 4 May 2000 at Canning Vale he used a computer service to obtain possession of an article, knowing it to be objectionable material, contrary to s 101(1)(b) of the Censorship Act 1996 (WA).
I held that the appellant had made out several of his grounds of appeal but nonetheless dismissed the appeal under s 199(1)(b) of the Justices Act 1902 (WA) because the decision of the learned Magistrate was correct, although not for the reasons she gave.
I note in passing that in the court below the learned Magistrate made an order pursuant to s 5(2) of the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) ("the Costs Act") that the complainant pay the defendant's costs fixed at $2250.
Mr Karstaedt, counsel for the respondent, has applied for the costs of the appeal pursuant to s 5(3) of the Costs Act. Ms Pritchard, counsel for the appellant, opposed that application. Her submission was that there should be no order for costs so that each party would have to bear his own. She put this on four bases:
1.costs are discretionary and in the…

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 169
Case: [2001] WASCA 169
Decision Date: 5 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haynes v Hughes involved an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Haynes, sought to challenge the dismissal of their appeal on the basis of the costs associated with the appeal process. The appellant argued that the dismissal of the appeal did not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice, despite the grounds of appeal being valid. The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the costs provisions under the Justices Act 1902 (WA) and how these provisions interact with the provisions of the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA).

The court examined the statutory framework governing the costs of appeals in the context of the Magistrates Court. It considered whether the dismissal of an appeal, even when the grounds of appeal were valid, could result in the appellant being liable for the costs of the appeal. The court noted that the Justices Act 1902 (WA) did not explicitly address the situation where an appeal is dismissed without a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) was also considered, as it provides for the awarding of costs to defendants in certain prosecutions, potentially extending to appeals under the Justices Act. The court held that despite the appeal being dismissed without a substantial miscarriage of justice, the appellant remained liable for the costs of the appeal under the statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the court determined that the statutory provisions did not exempt the appellant from the costs of the appeal, even though the appeal was dismissed on the basis of no substantial miscarriage of justice. The court emphasised the need to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions governing costs in appeals. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders