NYONI -v- MURPHY [2014] WASCA 70
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 70 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:162/2013 | 23 JANUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 4/04/14 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | EMSON CLEVER NYONI JILLIAN MURPHY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application for leave to appeal against decision Pharmacist Failure to comply with Poisons Regulations applying to storage of schedule 8 medications |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18, s 27 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 178(2) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 137 Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) Poisons Act 1964 (WA), s 62 Poisons Regulations 1965 (WA), r 44, r 45, r 56, r 56C, r 56D Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 11 |
Case References: | Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL) Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Nyoni v Murphy [2013] WASC 298 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [2011] FCA 1299 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [No 2] [2012] FCA 1477 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [No 3] [2013] FCA 1090 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [No 4] [2014] FCA 22 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin [No 5] [2014] FCA 204 R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159 Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : NYONI -v- MURPHY [2014] WASCA 70 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
JILLIAN MURPHY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : EM HEENAN J
Citation : NYONI -v- MURPHY [2013] WASC 298
File No : SJA 1013 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal against decision - Pharmacist - Failure to comply with Poisons Regulations applying to storage of schedule 8 medications
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18, s 27
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 178(2)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 137
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Poisons Act 1964 (WA), s 62
Poisons Regulations 1965 (WA), r 44, r 45, r 56, r 56C, r 56D
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 11
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Nyoni v…
Continue reading Nyoni v Murphy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Nyoni v Murphy [2014] WASCA 70
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 70
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Nyoni versus Murphy came before the court where the applicant, a pharmacist, sought leave to appeal a conviction and sentence for failure to comply with Poisons Regulations concerning the storage of schedule 8 medications. The conviction arose from an incident where the pharmacist was found to have stored certain medications in a manner inconsistent with the applicable regulations. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds to justify an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
The court considered whether the application met the threshold for leave to appeal, focusing on whether there were arguable grounds of appeal and whether the appeal would have a reasonable chance of success. The court examined the evidence and submissions provided, assessing the validity of the regulations and the pharmacist's compliance with them. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any arguable grounds of appeal which would warrant the appeal being heard. The evidence and arguments presented did not sufficiently challenge the findings of fact or the application of the law by the lower court.
As a result, the court refused the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court determined that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and that the decision of the lower court was correctly made. The court's decision was based on the applicant's inability to establish a valid basis for overturning the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were upheld.
The court considered whether the application met the threshold for leave to appeal, focusing on whether there were arguable grounds of appeal and whether the appeal would have a reasonable chance of success. The court examined the evidence and submissions provided, assessing the validity of the regulations and the pharmacist's compliance with them. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any arguable grounds of appeal which would warrant the appeal being heard. The evidence and arguments presented did not sufficiently challenge the findings of fact or the application of the law by the lower court.
As a result, the court refused the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court determined that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and that the decision of the lower court was correctly made. The court's decision was based on the applicant's inability to establish a valid basis for overturning the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
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.