MASTRANGELO -v- REYNOLDS [2001] WASCA 347
| (2001) 25 WAR 133 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 347 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1042/2001 | 7 SEPTEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J EINFELD AJ | 7/11/01 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Order that appellant pay respondent's costs of first appeal set aside Respondent entitled to an indemnity certificate in respect of his costs of both appeals and an order under s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA) | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JUSTIN BRADLEY MASTRANGELO SCOTT PAUL REYNOLDS |
Catchwords: | Procedure Costs Appeal by defendant against sentence for traffic offence Period of licence suspension reduced on appeal Order for costs of appeal in favour of defendant Further appeal by prosecution to the Full Court against costs order Defendant not a "successful defendant" as defined in Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) s 4(2) Order for costs set aside Defendant entitled to an indemnity certificate under s 11(b) of the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) in respect of both appeals No order made in favour of prosecution regarding costs of the first appeal The question raised by this appeal was "a question of law of exceptional public importance" within the meaning of s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA) Defendant as respondent to second appeal entitled to an order for his costs and any costs ordered to be paid to the appellant to be certified by a Registrar pursuant to s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 |
Legislation: | Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) s 4(2), s 5 Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) s 10, s 11, s 12A(2) Justices Act 1902 (WA) s 199(1), s 219 |
Case References: | Bolton v Strange [2001] WASCA 34 Graham v Ferguson, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960606; 17 October 1996 M (A Child) v The Queen (1994) 13 WAR 306 McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 All ER 1034 Miles v Orr, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950171; 13 April 1995 O'Dea v Fletcher, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920666; 20 November 1992 Paterson v Steer [2000] WASCA 250 R v Kelly [1999] 3 WLR 1100 Small v Walker, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 5777.2; 28 March 1985 Sorrell v Bryant (Commissioner of State Revenue), unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980170; 7 April 1998 Williams v Beverly & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980474; 24 August 1998 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : MASTRANGELO -v- REYNOLDS [2001] WASCA 347 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
EINFELD AJ
- Appellant (Respondent)
AND
SCOTT PAUL REYNOLDS
Respondent (Appellant)
Catchwords:
Procedure - Costs - Appeal by defendant against sentence for traffic offence - Period of licence suspension reduced on appeal…
Continue reading Mastrangelo v Reynolds
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Mastrangelo v Reynolds [2001] WASCA 347
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 347
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Mastrangelo v Reynolds, the respondent appealed against the decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, which had ordered him to pay the costs of the first appeal after reducing his licence suspension period. The appellant, acting as the prosecution, had filed a further appeal against the order for the respondent's costs of the appeal, arguing that the respondent was not a successful defendant under the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA). The respondent argued that the appeal raised a question of law of exceptional public importance and therefore he was entitled to an indemnity certificate and an order for his costs of both appeals.
The court was required to determine whether the respondent was a successful defendant under the Act, and if not, whether he was entitled to an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) and an order for his costs of both appeals under the Justices Act 1902 (WA). The court also had to decide whether the question raised by the appeal was of exceptional public importance.
The court held that the respondent was not a successful defendant as he had not succeeded in his appeal against the sentence for the traffic offence. However, the court found that the appeal raised a question of law of exceptional public importance as it involved the interpretation of the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) and the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA). The court therefore set aside the order for costs of the first appeal and ordered that the respondent was entitled to an indemnity certificate in respect of his costs of both appeals and an order for his costs of the second appeal to be certified by a Registrar pursuant to s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA). No order was made in favour of the prosecution regarding the costs of the first appeal. The appeal was allowed and the orders were made as outlined above.
The court was required to determine whether the respondent was a successful defendant under the Act, and if not, whether he was entitled to an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) and an order for his costs of both appeals under the Justices Act 1902 (WA). The court also had to decide whether the question raised by the appeal was of exceptional public importance.
The court held that the respondent was not a successful defendant as he had not succeeded in his appeal against the sentence for the traffic offence. However, the court found that the appeal raised a question of law of exceptional public importance as it involved the interpretation of the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) and the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA). The court therefore set aside the order for costs of the first appeal and ordered that the respondent was entitled to an indemnity certificate in respect of his costs of both appeals and an order for his costs of the second appeal to be certified by a Registrar pursuant to s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA). No order was made in favour of the prosecution regarding the costs of the first appeal. The appeal was allowed and the orders were made as outlined above.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Order that appellant pay respondent's costs of first appeal set aside
Respondent entitled to an indemnity certificate in respect of his costs of both appeals and an order under s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA)
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.