Legal Research
Cases
Lawler v Johnson

Lawler v Johnson

Case [2002] NSWSC 864 20 September 2002

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 56 NSWLR 1
(2002) 134 A Crim R 199

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Lawler v Johnson & Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] NSWSC 864 revised - 13/11/2003

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11083/02

HEARING DATE(S): 6, 7 May 2002; 23 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 September 2002

PARTIES :

Frederick Lawler v Paul Johnson & Director of Public Prosecutions

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : P Johnson

COUNSEL : Mr P Hogan; Mr M Ainsworth - For Plaintiff
Mr I Bourke - for Second Defendant

SOLICITORS: Kells, The Lawyers, Wollongong - For Plaintiff
S E O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - for Second Defendant

CATCHWORDS: Committal Proceedings - Practice and Procedure - Evidence - Oral Evidence by Complainant - Oral evidence by other witness - Special reasons - Norm or datum for comparison - Statutory construction - Substantial reasons - Offence involving violence - Prescribed sexual offence - Offences under ss 67 and 76 of Crimes Act not within definitions

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 ss48E,48EA
Crimes Act 1900,ss4, 67, 76, 405B, 405C
Crimes (Sexual Assault) Amendment Act 1981
Crimes (Personal and Family Violence) Amendment Act 1987
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Justices (Procedure) Further Amendment Act 1983
Justices (Paper Committals) Amendment Act 1987
Justices Amendment (Committals) Act 1996

CASES CITED: O'Hare v DPP [2000] NSWSC 430, 22 May 2000, unreported
B v Gould (1993) 67 A Crim R 297
Regina v Kennedy NSWCCA, 1 July 1997, unreported
Losurdo v DPP NSWCA, 23 September 1998, unreported
Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472
Hilton v Hyde (1987) NSWSC, 29 April 1987
W v AG; P v Wellington District Court (1993) 1 NZLR 1, per Cooke P
Gun; Ex Parte Stephenson (1977) 17 SASR 165
L v Director of Public Prosecutions NSWSC 26 August 1994, unreported
Regina v VCH NSWCCA 11 September 1992, unreported
Kant v Director of Public Prosecutions (1994) 34 NSWLR 216
Director General New South Wales Department of Community Services v Childrens Court of New South Wales;Re Peter and Ors [2002] NSWSC 679, unreported
Stanoevski v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 115

DECISION: Declaration that magistrate erred; Orders of refusal made by the magistrate on 6 March 2002 quashed; Order that matter be remitted for determinations in accordance with law as stated in reasons for judgment; Second defendant (DPP) to pay plaintiff's costs.

- 13 -

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

O’KEEFE J

FRIDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2002

11083/2002 – FREDERICK LAWLER v PAUL JOHNSON & ANOR

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

1 This is an appeal against a decision by a magistrate on 6 March 2002 refusing an application by Frederick Lawler (the plaintiff) for orders under s 48E of the Justices Act 1902 that the complainant and her mother attend the Local Court for cross examination in committal proceedings against the plaintiff.

2 On 17 April 2002 the plaintiff filed…

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 Lawler v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Lawler v Johnson [2002] NSWSC 864
Case: [2002] NSWSC 864
Decision Date: 20 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Lawler v Johnson involved the applicant seeking committal to stand trial for offences under sections 67 and 76 of the Crimes Act. The applicant was alleged to have committed acts of violence and prescribed sexual offences against the complainant. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary focus of the case was whether the applicant should be committed to stand trial based on the evidence presented.

The court had to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the complainant and other witnesses to establish whether the applicant had committed the alleged offences. The court also had to consider the requirement for "substantial reasons" under the relevant statutory provisions and whether these reasons were met in this case. Additionally, the court examined the definitions and scope of the prescribed offences, specifically whether the acts alleged under sections 67 and 76 of the Crimes Act fell within the definitions provided by the legislation.

The court concluded that the evidence provided by the complainant and other witnesses was sufficient to establish substantial reasons for committal. The court found that the acts alleged by the prosecution did not fall within the definitions of the prescribed offences under sections 67 and 76 of the Crimes Act. Consequently, the applicant was not to be committed to stand trial for those offences. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting statutory definitions accurately and highlighted the need for evidence to align with the specific criteria set out in the legislation.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant should not be committed to stand trial for the offences under sections 67 and 76 of the Crimes Act. The court's decision was based on the insufficiency of the evidence to meet the statutory definitions and the lack of substantial reasons to support a committal for those specific charges.

Orders