Huilgol v Police No. Scciv-02-209 Summary

HUILGOL v POLICE
[2002] SASC 427
Full Court: Doyle CJ, Lander and Bleby JJ (ex tempore)

DOYLE CJ, LANDER & BLEBY JJ: This is an application to the Full Court for leave to appeal against a decision by a Judge of this Court on 30 April 2002.
The Judge refused leave to appeal on 14 August 2002.
The application for leave to appeal was filed on 10 December 2002.
The Judge heard an appeal to the Supreme Court by Ms Huilgol against orders made by a Magistrate on a review of an enforcement order made under s 13(2) of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA) (“the Act”). The enforcement order was made by a Registrar.
That order was not subject to appeal, but was the subject of a review under s 14(1) of the Act. Ms Huilgol sought a review, and, as we have said, a Magistrate confirmed the order on review, in exercise of powers conferred by s 14(4)(a) of the Act.
Section 14(6) of the Act provides:
“A decision of the Court made on a review of an enforcement order is not subject to appeal by the person liable under the order (but nothing in this section affects the person’s right of appeal against the conviction of the offence or offences to which the order relates).”
The Judge said that having regard to this provision, there could be no appeal against the Magistrate’s decision made on a review of the relevant enforcement order or orders. He dismissed the appeal. It may be that he should have struck the appeal out as incompetent.
An appeal lies to the Full Court against the decision of the Judge, by virtue of s 50(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA). But by proviso (3)(a) of s 50(1), an appeal does not lie without leave from an order on appeal from the Magistrates Court. The order was made on a purported appeal from that Court.
The application for leave to appeal is made under r 94.01 of the Supreme Court Rules, and being made to the Full Court as a result of the Judge having refused leave, is to be considered privately by the Full Court under r 94.03. The Court has considered the written submissions made by Ms Huilgol.
In the light of the information provided by Ms Huilgol relating to her health, the Court extends the time within which the application for leave to appeal may be made to 10 December 2002.
The application for leave to appeal raises a point of principle, which is whether the order made on review could be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. But the decision of the Judge is plainly right. The purported appeal to this Court is clearly barred by s 14(6) of the Act.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to refuse leave to appeal, and we so order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huilgol v Police involved an application by Ms Huilgol to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia for leave to appeal against a decision made by a single Judge. The single Judge had dismissed an appeal by Ms Huilgol against orders made by a Magistrate, who had reviewed an enforcement order issued under the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA). Ms Huilgol sought to appeal the Magistrate's decision, but the single Judge found that such a review decision was not appealable under section 14(6) of the Act. The application for leave to appeal was made under rule 94.01 of the Supreme Court Rules, following the refusal of leave by the single Judge, and was considered by the Full Court.

The primary legal issue for the Full Court was whether the order made on review by the Magistrate could be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. The court had to consider the provisions of section 14(6) of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA), which explicitly states that a decision of the Court made on a review of an enforcement order is not subject to appeal by the person liable under the order. The Full Court was also required to examine the applicability of section 50(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), which governs appeals to the Supreme Court, and the effect of the proviso to this section regarding leave to appeal from the Magistrates Court.

In its reasoning, the Full Court noted that the single Judge's decision was correct in principle; the appeal was barred by section 14(6) of the Act, which precludes appeals against review decisions. The Full Court acknowledged that the appeal might have been incompetent and should have been struck out. However, it was appropriate to refuse leave to appeal, as the statutory provisions clearly prevented such an appeal. The Full Court also took into account Ms Huilgol's health-related circumstances, which resulted in an extension of time for lodging the application for leave to appeal.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. It upheld the single Judge's decision and ruled that Ms Huilgol was not entitled to appeal the Magistrate's review decision under the Act. The Full Court's order confirmed the finality of the Magistrate's decision and emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory provisions governing appeals in the context of expiation orders.

Huilgol v Police No. Scciv-02-209

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established