Jordan v Persse

Case [2017] SASC 133

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Civil)

JORDAN v PERSSE

[2017] SASC 133

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton

20 September 2017

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - UNQUALIFIED PERSONS AND DISQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS - ACTING AS SOLICITOR

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION - WHERE QUESTION OF EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY RAISED - LOCALITY OF CRIME

Appeal against conviction and sentence by a Magistrate for one count of holding out as being entitled to practise law without a practising certificate issued and in force contrary to s 21(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA). The appellant was sentenced to a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months on the condition that he perform 80 hours of community service.

The prosecution case at trial turned on a letter which the appellant admitted to having written and sent to its recipient in Western Australia. The letter, amongst other things, had on its letterhead the word “Solicitor” and recorded a South Australian address. It was in writing that letter, and having regard to its form and content, that the prosecution contended the offence contrary to s 21(1) was committed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

1. The offence contained in s 21(1) is capable of having an extra-territorial operation. The requisite territorial connexion existed in this case.

2.      The letter prepared and sent by the appellant was admissible as an item of real evidence. In any event, if it were to be used for a hearsay purpose, it would nevertheless be admissible as a statement against interest.

3.      The appellant held himself out as being entitled to practise the profession of law in South Australia by describing himself in his letterhead as a solicitor.  It matters not what the recipient actually perceived; rather, it matters what the reasonable person would have inferred from the form and content of the letter.

4. Section 21(3a) does not excuse the person who holds themselves out as entitled to practise the profession of law in South Australia simply because they may also provide legal services in relation to the law of a place outside of Australia.

5.      In all the circumstances the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) ss 5, 21; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5E, 5F, 5G, 5H, referred to.
Union Steamship Co of Australia Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1; Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v NSW (2001) 205 CLR 399; Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1; Grannall v C Geo Kellaway and Sons Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 36; Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485; Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Assn Inc v SA (1989) 168 CLR 340; Horseman v Nairn [1926] SASR 1; Steel v Mortlock [1971] SASR 289; Taylor v Richardson [1938] 2 All ER 681, considered.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED

"Holding out"

JORDAN v PERSSE
[2017] SASC 133

Magistrate’s Appeal

HINTON J.

Introduction

  1. On 7 March 2016 the appellant was found guilty by…

Continue reading Jordan v Persse

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jordan v Persse [2017] SASC 133
Case
[2017] SASC 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jordan v Persse, the matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, involving the appellant, Jordan, who had been convicted of a criminal offence. The primary dispute centred on the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, particularly given that the crime in question was alleged to have occurred outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellant challenged the qualifications of a solicitor who represented him during part of the proceedings, arguing that the solicitor was unqualified to act in that capacity.

The court was required to determine two main legal issues. The first was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, given that the alleged crime was said to have taken place outside its territorial limits. The second issue pertained to the qualifications of the solicitor who represented the appellant, and whether his lack of qualifications could invalidate any part of the proceedings or the subsequent conviction and sentence.

The court held that despite the argument regarding the extra-territorial nature of the crime, the jurisdictional challenge was not sufficient to dismiss the case. It found that the court's jurisdiction was properly invoked, as the crime's effects were felt within its territory. Regarding the solicitor's qualifications, the court concluded that any irregularities in the solicitor's qualifications did not prejudice the appellant to such an extent as to warrant a reversal of the conviction or sentence. The court held that the overall proceedings were valid and that the appellant had received a fair trial.

The court ultimately dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, affirming the lower court's decision. The final orders were to uphold the conviction and sentence as determined by the court below, without alteration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

HINTON J
I would dismiss the appeal against sentence.Conclusion I would dismiss the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HINTON J

Full text does not contain this section.