ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No              :  SJA 1083 of 2011
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G N CALDER
File No  :PE 26728 of 2011
For File No              :  SJA 1085 of 2011
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R G W BAYLY
File No  :PE 15704 of 2011
For File No              :  SJA 1032 of 2012
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE E D CAMPIONE
File No  :PE 18029 of 2011, PE 18030 of 2011

Catchwords:

Application for leave to appeal against convictions - Jurisdiction of courts - Validity of laws - Alleged constitutional grounds without merit - Judiciary Act - s 78B notices - Application in SJA 1032 of 2012 adjourned because of short notice - Applications for leave to appeal in SJA 1083 of 2011 and SJA 1085 of 2011 without merit - Leave to appeal refused in each case

Legislation:

Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth)
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (IMP)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55, s 75
Criminal Procedure Rules, r 60
Currency Act 1965 (Cth)
Fines, Penalty and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Cth)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49(1)(a), s 49(3)(c)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 16(1), s 23, s 24

Result:

SJA 1083 of 2011 - Leave to appeal refused
SJA 1085 of 2011 - Leave to appeal refused
SJA 1032 of 2012 - Application for leave to appeal adjourned

Category: B

Representation:

SJA 1083 of 2011

Counsel:

Applicant/Appellant : In person
Respondent: Mr P D Spragg

Solicitors:

Applicant/Appellant : In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

SJA 1085 of 2011

Counsel:

Applicant/Appellant : In person
Respondent: Mr P D Spragg

Solicitors:

Applicant/Appellant : In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

SJA 1032 of 2012

Counsel:

Applicant/Appellant : In person
Respondent: Mr P D Spragg

Solicitors:

Applicant/Appellant : In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 251; [2005] HCA 38
Amrit Lal Narain v Parnell (1986) 9 FCR 479
Boath v Wyvill (1989) 85 ALR 621
Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360; [1988] HCA 18
CVFC Ltd v Charitopoulos [2009] SASC 30
Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14
Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138
Hedley v Spivey [2011] WASC 326

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 Krysiak v McDonagh

Details

AGLC: Krysiak v McDonagh [2012] WASC 270
Case: [2012] WASC 270
Decision Date: 26 JULY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Krysiak v McDonagh, the applicant sought leave to appeal against convictions that were determined by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the courts and the validity of the laws under which the applicant was convicted. The applicant argued that the convictions were unconstitutional, and thus sought leave to appeal on those grounds. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's constitutional arguments were valid and whether the application for leave to appeal was justified.

The court examined the applicant's constitutional arguments and found that they were without merit. The court held that the relevant laws were valid and did not infringe upon any constitutional rights. The court also considered the applicant's arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the courts and found that they were not valid. The court held that the Supreme Court of South Australia had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the applicant's arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the courts were unfounded. The court also noted that the application for leave to appeal in SJA 1032 of 2012 was adjourned because of short notice, and that the applications for leave to appeal in SJA 1083 of 2011 and SJA 1085 of 2011 were without merit.

In light of the above, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the convictions. The court held that the applicant's constitutional arguments were without merit and that the applications for leave to appeal were unfounded. The court further held that the Supreme Court of South Australia had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the applicant's arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the courts were unfounded. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable law. The court's final orders were that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was refused in each case.

Orders