Legal Research
Cases
Lloyd v Snooks

Lloyd v Snooks

Case [1999] TASSC 117 10 November 1999

Constitutional Validity

Criminal Liability

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[1999] TASSC 117

CITATION: Lloyd v Snooks [1999] TASSC 117

PARTIES: LLOYD, Nigel Richard

v
SNOOKS, Dean Richard

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 60/1997
DELIVERED ON:  10 November 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  23 August 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Wright J, Evans J

Constitutional Law (Cth) - Operation and effect of The Commonwealth Constitution - General matters - Relationship between Commonwealth and States generally - Effect of State laws on the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities - Power of State Parliament to confer function incompatible with exercise by State court of Commonwealth judicial power - Act requiring State court to impose special mandatory penalties in respect of fisheries offences - Whether such provisions invalid as requiring State court to exercise a function incompatible with Commonwealth.

Commonwealth Constitution, Ch III.
Fisheries Act 1959 (Tas), s9(1AAB).
Sea Fisheries Regulations 1962 (Tas), regs31A(2) and 44(1)(o).
Fraser Henleins Pty Ltd v Cody (1945) 70 CLR 100; Palling v Corfield (1970) 123 CLR 52; Moffatt v R (1997) 91 A Crim R 557; Wynbyne v Marshall (1997) 177 NTR 11, applied.
Kable v DPP (1996) 70 ALJR 814, considered.

Aust Dig Constitutional Law [142]
Primary Industry - Fish - Offences - Taking or possessing under prescribed size or weight - Other fish - Abalone - Taking abalone "from the wild" - Whether abalone removed from rocks and placed in bag by one offender were taken "from the wild" by another offender raising bag to the surface.

Sea Fisheries Regulations 1962 (Tas), regs31A(2).
Aust Dig Primary Industry [32]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant/Cross Respondent:      W T McMillan
             Respondent/Cross Appellant:      F C Neasey
Solicitors:
             Appellant/Cross Respondent:      Ritchie & Parker Alfred Green & Co
             Respondent/Cross Appellant:      Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 117
Number of paragraphs: 16

Serial No 117/1999
File No FCA 60/1997

NIGEL RICHARD LLOYD v DEAN RICHARD SNOOKS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
COX CJ

WRIGHT J
EVANS J

10 November 1999

Orders of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Cross-appeal allowed.

Order dated 16 June 1997 setting aside the conviction of the appellant in respect of charge 2 on Complaint No 27491/1995 and the sentence thereon set aside.

Order that the conviction of the appellant on charge 2 on Complaint No 27491/1995 and the fine of $500 and special penalty of $29,400 thereon be restored.

Order that the sentence of the Court of Petty Sessions in respect of charge 3 on Complaint No 27491/1995 by substituting for the special penalty imposed thereon of $34,700 a special penalty of $34,200.

In all other respects confirm the order of the Court of Petty Sessions made on 28 May 1996 in respect of Complaint No 27491/1995.

Serial No 117/1999
File No FCA 60/1997

NIGEL RICHARD LLOYD v DEAN RICHARD SNOOKS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  COX CJ
  10 November 1999

I have had the advantage of reading the Reasons for Judgment prepared by Wright J in respect of this appeal and cross-appeal. I agree with…

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 Lloyd v Snooks

Details

AGLC: Lloyd v Snooks [1999] TASSC 117
Case: [1999] TASSC 117
Decision Date: 10 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lloyd v Snooks [1999] TASSC 117 involves an appeal and cross-appeal by Nigel Richard Lloyd and Dean Richard Snooks, respectively, against an order setting aside Lloyd's conviction for taking undersized abalone from the wild and the penalties imposed. The appeal centred on the constitutionality of the Fisheries Act 1959 (Tas) and Sea Fisheries Regulations 1962 (Tas) concerning the imposition of special penalties for fisheries offences. The cross-appeal challenged the trial judge's finding that Lloyd did not aid and abet the taking of undersized abalone from the wild. The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Full Court, dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-appeal, restoring Lloyd's conviction and penalties for taking undersized abalone from the wild and adjusting the penalty for the offence of taking more than ten abalone in one day due to an arithmetical error.

The legal issues revolved around the validity of the Fisheries Act and Sea Fisheries Regulations in light of the Commonwealth Constitution and whether Lloyd's actions constituted taking abalone from the wild. The court examined if the special penalties prescribed by the Act and Regulations were compatible with the Commonwealth Constitution, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in Kable v DPP (1996) 70 ALJR 814. Additionally, the court considered whether Lloyd's participation in raising the abalone from under the sea to the surface constituted taking them from the wild.

The Full Court found that the special penalty provisions were not unconstitutional as they did not compel the court to exercise functions incompatible with Commonwealth judicial power. The court relied on previous authorities such as Fraser Henleins Pty Ltd v Cody (1945) 70 CLR 100, Palling v Corfield (1970) 123 CLR 52, and Moffatt v R (1997) 91 A Crim R 557 to support its conclusion. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court held that Lloyd was guilty of taking abalone from the wild as he participated in raising them from under the sea to the surface. The court emphasised that abalone remained "in the wild" until they were removed from the sea to a boat or land environment where they could not survive without artificial habitat, thus Lloyd's actions constituted taking them from the wild.

Orders