PEREJMIBIDA -v- SKELCHER [2002] WASCA 2
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 2 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1085/2001 | 22 AUGUST 2001 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 14/01/02 | |
| 26 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STEPHEN JOHN PEREJMIBIDA ZACHARY JAMES SKELCHER |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 Declaration under s 32A that a person is a "drug trafficker" Criminal (Property Confiscation) Act 2000, s 8(1) Whether declaration that a person is a "drug trafficker" can be made by a Court of Petty Sessions Criminal law Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 9(2) Summary conviction of an indictable offence Whether s 673 of the Criminal Code applies Whether deemed to be a conviction of a summary offence Whether conviction of a "serious drug offence" within meaning of Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 32A(3) Criminal law Plea of guilty Conviction Conviction requires formal determination of guilt by court |
Legislation: | Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1988 (WA), s 10(1)(b) Criminal Code (WA), s 673 Criminal (Property Confiscation) Act 2000 (WA), s 8(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 32A |
Case References: | Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569 Cheatley v The Queen (1972-1973) ALR 907 Di Camillo v Wilcox [1964] WAR 44 Director of Public Prosecutions v Kindred (1995) 15 WAR 133 DPP Reference No 1 of 1972 (1993) 65 A Crim R 197 Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 Hester v Davies, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970721; 18 December 1997 K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; 87 A Crim R 180 Metropolitan Gas Co v Federated Gas Employees' Industrial Union (1924) 35 CLR 449 Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19 O'Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582 R v Cole [1965] 2 QB 388 R v Collins; Ex parte Attorney General (1996) 1 Qd R 631 R v Gillan (1991) 100 ALR 66 R v Robertson & Golder [1987] QB 920 R v Rowe (1991) 5 WAR 491 Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515 Ross v The Queen(1979) 141 CLR 432 Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73 Slater v Marshall [1965] WAR 222 Sweeney v Fitzhardinge (1906) 4 CLR 716 The King v Adams (1935) 53 CLR 563 DPP v Logan Park Investments Pty Ltd & Anor (1995) 37 NSWLR 118 Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19 St John v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 4970; 23 June 1983 West v Suzuka [1964] WAR 112 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : PEREJMIBIDA -v- SKELCHER [2002] WASCA 2 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 22 AUGUST 2001 DELIVERED : 14 JANUARY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1085 of 2001 BETWEEN : STEPHEN JOHN PEREJMIBIDA
- Appellant
AND
ZACHARY JAMES SKELCHER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 - Declaration under s…
Continue reading Perejmibida v Skelcher
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Perejmibida v Skelcher [2002] WASCA 2
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Perejmibida v Skelcher is a decision by the Court of Appeal which deals with the application of various sections of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Criminal (Property Confiscation) Act 2000. The dispute involved a declaration that the appellant was a "drug trafficker" under section 32A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and whether this declaration could be made by a Court of Petty Sessions. Additionally, the case examined the applicability of section 673 of the Criminal Code in relation to a summary conviction of an indictable offence and whether such a conviction could be deemed to be a conviction of a summary offence. The final issue was whether the conviction of a "serious drug offence" within the meaning of section 32A(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 required a formal determination of guilt by the court.
The court was required to decide several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to determine whether a declaration that a person is a "drug trafficker" could be made by a Court of Petty Sessions. Secondly, the court had to consider whether a summary conviction of an indictable offence under section 673 of the Criminal Code was deemed to be a conviction of a summary offence. Thirdly, it needed to examine whether the conviction of a "serious drug offence" required a formal determination of guilt by the court. The court's analysis of these issues was critical in understanding the extent to which the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Criminal (Property Confiscation) Act 2000 could be applied in the context of a Court of Petty Sessions.
In reaching its decision, the court concluded that a declaration that a person is a "drug trafficker" could not be made by a Court of Petty Sessions. The court held that such a declaration required a formal determination of guilt by the court, which was not provided in this case. Consequently, the conviction of a "serious drug offence" under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 could not be based on a summary conviction of an indictable offence. The court's reasoning was grounded in the necessity for a formal determination of guilt, which is a requisite for such a declaration under section 32A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.
The court was required to decide several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to determine whether a declaration that a person is a "drug trafficker" could be made by a Court of Petty Sessions. Secondly, the court had to consider whether a summary conviction of an indictable offence under section 673 of the Criminal Code was deemed to be a conviction of a summary offence. Thirdly, it needed to examine whether the conviction of a "serious drug offence" required a formal determination of guilt by the court. The court's analysis of these issues was critical in understanding the extent to which the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Criminal (Property Confiscation) Act 2000 could be applied in the context of a Court of Petty Sessions.
In reaching its decision, the court concluded that a declaration that a person is a "drug trafficker" could not be made by a Court of Petty Sessions. The court held that such a declaration required a formal determination of guilt by the court, which was not provided in this case. Consequently, the conviction of a "serious drug offence" under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 could not be based on a summary conviction of an indictable offence. The court's reasoning was grounded in the necessity for a formal determination of guilt, which is a requisite for such a declaration under section 32A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.