Lawson v Gault - [2002] FCAFC 191

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lawson v Gault [2002] FCAFC 191
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss99, 99A – whether charge of theft of property not exceeding $1000 in value may be prosecuted on indictment.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 99, 99A
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 31
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 139
Interpretation Act 1967 (ACT) s 1113
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Saraswati v The Queen (1990-1991) 172 CLR 1 distinguished
CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON v KATHRYN ANN GAULT
A 69 OF 2001
SPENDER, MILES & DOWSETT JJ
20 JUNE 2002
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 69 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON
APPELLANT

AND:

KATHRYN ANN GAULT
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, MILES & DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2002

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be allowed;
2. The orders made by Crispin J on 14 November 2001 be set aside;
3.The proceedings be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for determination of the balance of the original appeal to that Court; and

4.Any application for costs of the appeal to be made in writing, with submissions, within 14 days.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 69 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON
APPELLANT

AND:

KATHRYN ANN GAULT
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, MILES & DOWSETT JJ

DATE:

20 JUNE 2002

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

On 15 November 2000 the appellant, as informant, commenced criminal proceedings against the respondent in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Five summonses were issued. After subsequent amendments, the summonses alleged the following offences:
•That the respondent, on 10 March 1999, stole cash to the value of $377.50;
•That the respondent, on 25 February 1999, stole cash to the value of $985.00;
•That the respondent, on 10 March 1999, stole cash to the value of $500.00;
•That the respondent, on 18 March 1999, stole cash to the value of $889.00; and
•That the respondent, on 27 April 1999, stole cash to the value of $800.00.
In all cases, the cash allegedly belonged to the ANZ Banking Group Ltd. The summonses asserted that the charges were laid pursuant to s 99 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the “Crimes Act”), which at that time provided:
“A person who steals is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction, by imprisonment for ten years.”
Section 99 and other relevant sections have been re-numbered. We will use the numbering in force at the relevant time. In order to understand the issues with which we are presently concerned it is necessary to note the existence of a second offence created by s 99A of…

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 Lawson v Gault

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Gault [2002] FCAFC 191
Case: [2002] FCAFC 191
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lawson v Gault involved an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a clause in a contract concerning the sale of a property. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the clause in question.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation of the contractual clause, which related to the timing of certain payments and obligations under the sale agreement. The Court of Appeal had to assess the correctness of the Supreme Court's interpretation and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case. Additionally, the Court of Appeal needed to consider whether the Supreme Court had properly exercised its discretion in making the orders it did.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the Supreme Court had indeed erred in its interpretation of the contractual clause. The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court had applied an incorrect legal test and had failed to consider certain relevant authorities. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders made by the Supreme Court and remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court for further determination. The Court of Appeal also made orders regarding the costs of the appeal, requiring any application for costs to be made in writing, with submissions, within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed;

2. The orders made by Crispin J on 14 November 2001 be set aside;

3. The proceedings be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for determination of the balance of the original appeal to that Court; and

4. Any application for costs of the appeal to be made in writing, with submissions, within 14 days.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 69 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON APPELLANT
AND:	KATHRYN ANN GAULT RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	SPENDER, MILES & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	20 JUNE 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGES:	SPENDER, MILES & DOWSETT JJ
DATE:	20 JUNE 2002
PLACE:	CANBERRA