Mann v Doo Wee

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from an order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from a summary conviction of the respondent, Doo Wee, for being a prohibited immigrant. Doo Wee had appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and an order was made for the appeal to be heard by way of rehearing. However, at the rehearing, counsel for Doo Wee sought to withdraw the appeal. The judge below ruled that the order for rehearing was equivalent to quashing the conviction, requiring the prosecution to prove the charge anew. The judge further ruled that the accused's absence from court prevented the charge from being proven, leading to the appeal being allowed and the conviction quashed.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the order for a rehearing had the effect of quashing the original conviction, and whether the absence of the accused from the rehearing prevented the prosecution from proving its case. The court was also required to consider the effect of the appellant abandoning his appeal.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that an order for a rehearing under section 191 of the Justices Act 1902 (W.A.) was a procedural step and not a substantive order that quashed the conviction. The court held that a conviction stands until it is properly reversed. When the appellant abandoned his appeal, the proper course was to dismiss the appeal, leaving the original conviction in force. The court also found that the appellant was present in contemplation of law through his counsel, and his subsequent absence did not invalidate the proceedings, particularly as the abandonment of the appeal rendered further proof unnecessary. The court distinguished the procedure from that under section 614 of the Criminal Code 1903 (W.A.), which applied to indictable offences.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the order appealed from be discharged, and the original conviction be restored.