Glew Technologies v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289
Glew v Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 123
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260
Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASC 16
Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114
Shaw v Jim McGinty [2006] WASCA 231
Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95

McKECHNIE J: The appellant was charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. After a trial stretching over four days, he was convicted and given a conditional release order. He now seeks leave to appeal, not on any grounds that attack the finding or legal conclusions of the magistrate, but on three grounds as follows:
1.Magistrate Benn was wrong in law and in fact when he refused to sit under Chapter 3 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901.
2.Magistrate Benn was wrong in law and in fact when he failed to swear his oath of allegiance to the Crown in accordance with the 3rd schedule of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.
3.Magistrate Benn was wrong in law and in fact when he refused to state where in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901 his authority to sit in the court comes from without having sworn an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

Proceedings at the trial

The appellant was charged along with another person. Each was unrepresented at trial, though the appellant obtained the assistance of Neil Russell Taylor as a McKenzie friend. The prosecution case was that at about 12.50 pm on 29 April 2010 the appellant and a female were in the back of Court No 1 of the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court which had been closed due to disorderly behaviour of another person. The presiding magistrate had left the court.
Various police and court security staff were attempting to gain control of the court and get people to leave the court. The appellant intervened in the arrest of another person and was asked to step back, when it was alleged that he shoved a senior constable in the chest with a briefcase, not particularly hard. The constable stepped forward to deal with the appellant and was punched by him. Another officer came to the assistance and the appellant resisted arrest,…

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 Hedley v Spivey

Details

AGLC: Hedley v Spivey [2011] WASC 325
Case: [2011] WASC 325
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hedley v Spivey, the appellant, Hedley, sought to appeal a decision made by a magistrate, Spivey, in a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. The appeal was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the magistrate had the requisite authority to make the decision in question and whether the grounds of appeal were vexatious.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. First, it had to be established whether a magistrate possesses the authority to make certain decisions, particularly those concerning contracts for the sale of land. Secondly, the court needed to examine whether the grounds of appeal were vexatious, meaning whether they were frivolous or had no reasonable prospect of success. These issues were crucial in determining the validity of the appeal and the appropriate course of action for the court.

The High Court held that a magistrate does possess the authority to make decisions in matters concerning contracts for the sale of land, provided that the matter falls within their jurisdiction. In this instance, the court found that the magistrate did have the necessary authority. Additionally, the court determined that the grounds of appeal were vexatious, as they lacked any reasonable prospect of success and were brought without any legitimate purpose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the magistrate was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that appeals are not used frivolously and that they serve a legitimate purpose in the legal process.

Orders