Morris v Hall

Case [2022] WASC 400

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MORRIS -v- HALL [2022] WASC 400

CORAM:   ARCHER J

HEARD:   8 NOVEMBER 2022

DELIVERED          :   1 DECEMBER 2022

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1577 of 2022

BETWEEN:   JEREMY JAMES MORRIS

Applicant

AND

MAGISTRATE THOMAS RUSSELL HALL

First Respondent

TAYLOR WILLIAM ELLIS

Second Respondent


Catchwords:

Review of a magistrate's decision - Statutory construction - Section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act - Discontinuance and dismissal of charge - Power of magistrate to consent to discontinuance - Abuse of process - Whether magistrate required to be positively satisfied it was not an abuse of process before the magistrate could consent to the discontinuance and dismiss the charge

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004, s 25

Result:

Application dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : B Hanbury
First Respondent : No appearance
Second Respondent : K Dias

Solicitors:

Applicant : Hale Legal
First Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ashwin v Housing Authority [2019] WASC 144

Australian Unity Property Ltd v City of Busselton [2018] WASCA 38

Bajaj v Magistrate Trevor Darge [2021] WASCA 218

Derley v R [2016] NSWCCA 60

Director of Public Prosecutions, South Australia v B [1998] HCA 45; (1998) 194 CLR 566

Hemmett v Market Direct Group [2018] WASC 214

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 264 CLR 123

Maxwell v R [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501

Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98

PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission [2019] QSC 83

R v Lorkin (1995) 14 WAR 499

Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203

Re an Application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004; Ex parte Bartholomew [2008] WASC 52

Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex Parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357

Re Magistrate G Benn; Ex parte Gething [2019] WASC 380

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82

Salmat Document Management Solutions Pty Ltd v R [2006] WASC 65

Snook v Roberts [2022] WASC 196

Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190

ARCHER J:

Introduction

  1. The applicant, Mr Morris, was charged with one count of unlawful assault causing bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) (Charge).  The matter was listed for trial in the Magistrates Court on 27 April 2022.

  2. On 18 April 2022, the prosecutor emailed defence counsel, stating that 'the matter will be discontinued.'[1]

    [1] Affidavit of Jeremy James Morrison sworn on 15 July 2022, JJM8.

  3. When the matter was called in the Magistrates Court on 27 April 2022, the prosecutor informed the learned magistrate that the Charge was to be discontinued, pursuant to s 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA). Under that section, if no evidence has been adduced in relation to a charge, the prosecutor may inform the Magistrates Court that the prosecutor is discontinuing the prosecution of the charge. On being so informed, the court…

Continue reading Morris v Hall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Morris v Hall [2022] WASC 400
Case
[2022] WASC 400
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morris v Hall involves a review of a decision made by a magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. Mr Morris sought to review a decision by the magistrate to dismiss a charge against him, alleging that the decision was flawed and constituted an abuse of process. The legal issues in this case revolve around the interpretation and application of Section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), which allows for judicial review of certain decisions made by Magistrates Court officers.

The primary legal issue was whether the magistrate's decision to dismiss the charge was an abuse of process or constituted a jurisdictional error. The court had to determine whether the magistrate had properly exercised their discretion and if there was a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the application was not an abuse of process. Additionally, the court considered whether the magistrate was adequately informed of the reasons for the application. The court examined the statutory provisions and previous case law to decide whether the applicant had established an arguable case of error.

In reviewing the decision, the court found that Mr Morris had not demonstrated an arguable case of error in the magistrate's decision. The court concluded that the magistrate had exercised their discretion correctly and that there was a basis for concluding that the application was not an abuse of process. The court also found that the magistrate was adequately informed of the reasons for the application. Therefore, the court dismissed the review application.

As the review application was dismissed, no review order was made and no further action is required by the parties. The decision of the magistrate stands, and Mr Morris's application for review has been unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

After hearing from both parties, the magistrate indicated that he was not satisfied that it would be an abuse of process to discontinue the prosecution, and dismissed the Charge (Decision). Mr Morris seeks a review of the Decision under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) (Review Application). The Review Application alleges that the learned Magistrate fell into jurisdictional error in ordering that the Charge be dismissed on the following grounds: 1.The power of the learned Magistrate to order the dismissal was conditional upon the learned Magistrate being satisfied that the application was not an abuse of process and there was no basis upon which that conclusion could be reached; and2.the learned Magistrate was not "informed" of proper reasons for the application. Section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) is a statutory judicial review power.[3] Section 36(1) provides:[3] Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203 [27] (McLure JA, as her Honour then was).(1)If a person is or would be aggrieved by one or more of the following ‑(a)the failure of a Court officer to do any act or make any order or direction ‑(i)on the ground that the officer is under a duty to do the act or make the order or direction; or(ii)on any ground that might have justified an order of mandamus;(b)an act, order or direction that a Court officer proposes to do or make -(i)on the ground that it would be without jurisdiction or power or would be an abuse of process; or(ii)on any ground that might have justified an order of prohibition;(c)an act, order or direction done or made by a Court officer -(i)on the ground that it was done or made without jurisdiction or power or is an abuse of process; or(ii)on any ground that might have justified an order of certiorari,the person may apply to the Supreme Court for an order (a review order) that requires the Court officer and any person who will be affected by the act, order or direction to satisfy the Supreme Court at a hearing that the act, order or direction should or should not be done or made or set aside, as the case requires. A review order can only be made if the applicant establishes an arguable case that an error of the type identified in s 36(1)(a), (b) or (c) was made. To fall within s 36(1), the error must be either a jurisdictional error,[4] or it must be an error of law on the face of the record.[5] [4] As to which see Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82 [163] (Hayne J), Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 264 CLR 123 and Bajaj v Magistrate Trevor Darge [2021] WASCA 218 [50] - [54].[5] Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex Parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357; see also Rayney [27] ‑ [34] (McLure JA, as her Honour then was) and Ashwin v Housing Authority [2019] WASC 144 [3] - [9]. The procedure for making, and in relation to, an application under s 36(1) is set out in O 56A of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA). If a review order is made, and if at the hearing of the review order the Supreme Court is not satisfied in accordance with the review order, or if it is just to do so, the Court may:[6](a)order that the act, order or direction be or not be done or made or set aside, as the case requires;(b)grant any relief or remedy that could have been granted by way of a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari;(c)make any necessary consequential orders.[6] Magistrates Court Act s 36(4).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.