Holder, Raymond v Searle, Bradley William (No 2) - [1997] FCA 1158

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether informations for offences based on s 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘the Act’) are bad for duplicity - whether offence alleging the existence of infringing articles based on one copyright work, if joined with an allegation involving infringing copies of another and discreet copyright work, is duplicitous - prosecutor can competently allege a contravention of s 132 of the Act which asserts the importation of a number of infringing copies of a work or different works.

Copyright Act 1968 ss 132, 133

Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 139 ALR 27
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Ronald Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 83
The Queen v Ballysingh (1953) 37 Cr App R

RAYMOND HOLDER v BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
QG 187 of 1996, QG 188 of 1996 and QG 189 of 1996

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
23 SEPTEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 187 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND HOLDER
Prosecutor

AND:

BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
Defendant

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 SEPTEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT RULES THAT the information in QG 187 of 1996 is not bad for duplicity.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 188 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND HOLDER
Prosecutor

AND:

BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
Defendant

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 SEPTEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT RULES THAT the amended information in QG 188 of 1996 is not bad for duplicity.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 189 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND HOLDER
Prosecutor

AND:

BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
Defendant

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 SEPTEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT RULES THAT the information in QG 189 of 1996 is not bad for duplicity.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 187 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND HOLDER
Prosecutor

AND:

BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
Defendant

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 188 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND HOLDER
Prosecutor

AND:

BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
Defendant

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 189 of 1996

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND HOLDER
Prosecutor

AND:

BRADLEY WILLIAM SEARLE
Defendant

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

23 SEPTEMBER 1997

PLACE:

BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No 2)

I am presently dealing with a submission on behalf of the defendant that, in respect of each of the three offences which the amended informations specify and which are detailed and particularised in the summonses, the informations are bad for duplicity. The essential submission can be shortly stated. It is that, having regard to the terms of s 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (‘the Act’), an offence which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Holder, Raymond v Searle, Bradley William (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1997] FCA 1158
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Raymond Holder, as the prosecutor, brought charges against Bradley William Searle, the defendant, concerning offences under the Copyright Act 1968. The crux of the case revolved around whether the informations for these offences were flawed due to duplicity. Specifically, the issue was whether an offence alleging infringing articles based on one copyright work, when combined with an allegation involving infringing copies of another distinct copyright work, constituted a duplicitous charge. The court had to determine whether such a combination was permissible under Section 132 of the Act.

The legal question the court faced was whether an information that combined allegations of infringing copies of different works was duplicitous. This issue was explored in light of Section 132 of the Copyright Act, which prohibits certain activities related to infringing copies of copyrighted works. The court examined the language of the statute, particularly the phrase "an article," and whether it could refer to multiple articles based on different works in a single offence.

Justice Spender concluded that it was permissible for the prosecutor to allege a contravention of Section 132 that included multiple infringing copies, even if they pertained to different works. The court reasoned that the Act was intended to penalise the overall conduct rather than focusing on each individual article. This interpretation allowed for a more practical and less oppressive approach to prosecution, especially considering the penalty provisions in Section 133 of the Act. The court found that the essence of the contravention should be considered from a transactional perspective rather than on an article-by-article basis. Therefore, the court ruled that the informations were not duplicitous.

The court's decision was that the informations in QG 187, QG 188, and QG 189 of 1996 were not bad for duplicity. This ruling allowed the charges to proceed without the need to separate them into multiple informations.

Orders