HEATHCOTE -v- KING [2002] WASCA 1
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 1 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1058/2001 | 17 AUGUST 2001 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 9/01/02 | |
| 47 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | SJA 1508 of 2001: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed in part SJA 1509 of 2001: Application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal refused | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID JOHN HEATHCOTE CHRISTOPHER JAMES KING TROY DANIEL NEWINGTON |
Catchwords: | Justices Appeal Extension of time Substantial delay Whether exceptional circumstances or substantial miscarriage of justice Justices Appeal Reasonable apprehension of bias Refusal of Magistrate to disqualify himself Justices Appeal Offences under s 41(e) of the Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers Act 1994 (WA) Liability of employer for offences committed by employee Whether defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact by employee available on prosecution of employee Section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) Justices Appeal Obligation to give reasons for decision |
Legislation: | Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 24 Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 11 Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 46, s 184(1), s 190, s 199(b) Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers Act 1994 (WA), s 41, s 88 |
Case References: | Agostinelli & Lewis v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 326 Attorney-General v Cockram (1990) 2 WAR 477 Bowern (1915) 34 NZLR 696 Cain v Doyle (1946) 72 CLR 409 Deeble v Flanagan (1910) 12 WALR 164 Ferrari v Neenan [2000] WASCA 191 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Geraldton Fishermen's Co-op v Munro [1963] WAR 129 Glennan [1970] 2 NSWR 421 Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1 Harling (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 Higgon v O'Dea [1962] WAR 140 Holcroft v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970550; 28 October 1997 Howell v Doyle [1852] VLR 128 Jackson v Horne (1965) 114 CLR 82 Julien v Racing Penalties Appeals Tribunal of WA & Anor [2001] WASCA 345 Lam v Beesley (1992) 7 WAR 88 Lancaster v The Queen [1989] WAR 83 Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Maloney v New South Wales National Coursing Association Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 161 McKinnon v Weir, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 970251; 21 May 1997 Mitchell v Myers (1955) 57 WALR 49 Pettit v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 R v Pinkstone & Ors [2001] WASC 252 R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248 Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 Simpson; Ex parte Morrison (1984) 154 CLR 101 Trustees of Christian Brothers v Cardone (1995) 130 ALR 345 Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 Webb & Hay v The Queen (1993-1994) 181 CLR 41 Webb v The Queen (1995) 13 WAR 257 Woods v Smith [1976] WAR 13 CLC Corp v Read [1999] FCA 384 |
Continue reading Heathcote v King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Heathcote v King [2002] WASCA 1
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Heathcote v King, the matter before the court involved two separate appeals brought by the applicant against the respondent, who was the Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The disputes arose from the respondent's decision to convict the applicant of offences under the Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers Act 1994 (WA) and the subsequent refusal to extend the time limit for appeal or disqualify himself from hearing the matter.
The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the Magistrate had the authority to extend the time for the applicant to lodge an appeal, whether the Magistrate's refusal to disqualify himself constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances, whether the employer could be held liable for the employee's offences, and whether the employee's honest and reasonable mistake of fact was a valid defence. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Magistrate was obligated to provide reasons for his decisions.
The court found that the Magistrate did have the discretion to extend the time for the appeal, and the refusal to do so was a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also concluded that the Magistrate's refusal to disqualify himself did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances. Regarding the employer's liability, the court held that the employer could be held liable for the employee's offences, but the employee's honest and reasonable mistake of fact could be a defence in the prosecution of the employee. The court further determined that the Magistrate was not obligated to give reasons for his decision.
The orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed in part, and the application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal was refused.
The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the Magistrate had the authority to extend the time for the applicant to lodge an appeal, whether the Magistrate's refusal to disqualify himself constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances, whether the employer could be held liable for the employee's offences, and whether the employee's honest and reasonable mistake of fact was a valid defence. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Magistrate was obligated to provide reasons for his decisions.
The court found that the Magistrate did have the discretion to extend the time for the appeal, and the refusal to do so was a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also concluded that the Magistrate's refusal to disqualify himself did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances. Regarding the employer's liability, the court held that the employer could be held liable for the employee's offences, but the employee's honest and reasonable mistake of fact could be a defence in the prosecution of the employee. The court further determined that the Magistrate was not obligated to give reasons for his decision.
The orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed in part, and the application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
SJA 1508 of 2001:
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed in part
SJA 1509 of 2001:
Application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal refused
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.