MATTHEWS -v- GREENE [2011] WASC 258

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASC 258
Case No:	CIV:1031/2011	Heard:	3 & 11 AUGUST 2011 & ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	14/09/11
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	CIV 1031 of 2011: The order made by her Honour Magistrate Langdon on 26 November 2010 should not be set aside CIV 1359 of 2011: The orders made by his Honour Magistrate Fisher on 23 February 2011 should be set aside CIV 2453 of 2011: The orders made by her Honour Magistrate Pontifex on 11 February 2011 be set aside
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID JAMES MATTHEWS RACHEL CLAIRE GREENE HER HONOUR MAGISTRATE ELIZABETH KATHRYN LANGDON NORMAN PAUL SIMPSON DARREN LEIGH ROYLE HIS HONOUR MAGISTRATE K T FISHER THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Criminal procedure Final hearing of review orders to show cause Statutory interpretation When an offence under s 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) can be tried summarily under s 9 of that Act Meaning of words 'charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with ... an offence under section 6(1) in respect of a quantity of a prohibited drug referred to in Schedule III that is less than the quantity specified in that Schedule in relation to that prohibited drug' Construction of the words used in the charge
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA) Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Case References:	Chung v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 231; (2007) 175 A Crim R 579 Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring [2003] HCA 33; (2003) 214 CLR 269 Marker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 282; (2002) 135 A Crim R 55 Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 Plaintiff S/157/2000 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476 Zuccala v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 129

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : MATTHEWS -v- GREENE [2011] WASC 258 CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 3 & 11 AUGUST 2011 & ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 1031 of 2011 BETWEEN : DAVID JAMES MATTHEWS

Plaintiff

AND

RACHEL CLAIRE GREENE

First Respondent

HER HONOUR MAGISTRATE ELIZABETH KATHRYN LANGDON

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 1359 of 2011 BETWEEN : NORMAN PAUL SIMPSON

Plaintiff

AND

DARREN LEIGH ROYLE

First Respondent

HIS HONOUR MAGISTRATE K T FISHER

Second Respondent

(Page 2)

FILE NO/S : CIV 2453 of 2011 BETWEEN : THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Plaintiff

AND

NORMAN PAUL SIMPSON

Defendant

Catchwords:

Criminal procedure - Final hearing of review orders to show cause - Statutory interpretation - When an offence under s 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) can be tried summarily under s 9 of that Act - Meaning of words 'charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with ... an offence under section 6(1)…

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 Matthews v Greene

Details

AGLC: Matthews v Greene [2011] WASC 258
Case: [2011] WASC 258
Decision Date: 14 SEPTEMBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Matthews v Greene, the court examined the interpretation of statutory language concerning the jurisdiction over drug-related offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). The matter involved three separate cases brought by the applicants against the decision of Magistrates to try the offences summarily. The applicants, Matthews, argued that the offences they were charged with should have been tried in the Supreme Court rather than summarily. The central legal issue was the interpretation of the phrase "charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with... an offence under section 6(1) in respect of a quantity of a prohibited drug referred to in Schedule III that is less than the quantity specified in that Schedule in relation to that prohibited drug." The applicants contended that the language in the charge did not meet the statutory criteria for summary jurisdiction, while the respondents argued that the charges were properly laid out.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory language, considering the plain meaning of the words and the legislative intent. The court examined whether the statutory provisions allowed for summary trials when the quantity of the prohibited drug was less than that specified in Schedule III. The court concluded that the language of the charge sufficiently referenced the statutory criteria and was correctly interpreted by the Magistrates. The court found that the words used in the charge were sufficient to meet the criteria for a summary trial, as they correctly referenced the statutory requirements and the quantity of the drug involved. Therefore, the court upheld the Magistrates' decisions in two cases and set aside the decision in the third case where the charge did not adequately reference the statutory criteria.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the order made by Magistrate Langdon, while setting aside the orders made by Magistrates Fisher and Pontifex. This outcome reflects the court's interpretation of the statutory language and its application to the specific charges laid in each case. The decision underscores the importance of precise statutory language in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for drug-related offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

CIV 1031 of 2011:

The order made by her Honour Magistrate Langdon on 26 November 2010 should not be set aside

CIV 1359 of 2011:

The orders made by his Honour Magistrate Fisher on 23 February 2011 should be set aside

CIV 2453 of 2011:

The orders made by her Honour Magistrate Pontifex on 11 February 2011 be set aside

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.