Joske v Strutt

The applicant, the informant, sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in *Joske v Strutt*. The case concerned Oswald John Strutt, who was recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria. Strutt was charged with displaying words at his place of business that tended to create the belief that he was practising dentistry, contrary to the *Dentists Act 1898* (Vic). The justices convicted Strutt, but the Supreme Court made an order absolute to review the decision, quashing the conviction.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the information laid against Strutt disclosed an offence and whether his actions were authorised by the *Dentists Act 1910* (Vic). The informant argued that the prohibition in section 7 of the *Dentists Act 1898* against unregistered persons using words implying the practice of dentistry was only modified by section 13 of the *Dentists Act 1910* to the extent that a recorded person could use such words in conjunction with the phrase "Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria" to clarify their status. Any other use of such words by a recorded person would constitute an offence.

Griffith C.J. noted that the information as framed did not clearly raise the intended legal question. He observed that to properly present the issue, the information should have specified that Strutt, being a recorded person, used words unconnected with the explanatory phrase "Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria," thereby implying he was practising dentistry. The Chief Justice indicated that while the point was interesting and potentially important, it did not arise with sufficient clarity on the facts presented in the information to warrant a decision by the High Court. Consequently, special leave to appeal was refused.