Legal Research
Cases
Pinkstone v The Queen

Pinkstone v The Queen

Case [2000] WASCA 367 22 November 2000

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION

PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 367

CORAM

: KENNEDY J

IPP J
OWEN J

HEARD

: 9 NOVEMBER 2000

DELIVERED

: 9 NOVEMBER 2000

PUBLISHED

: 22 NOVEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S

:	CCA 184 of 2000

BETWEEN

: ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE

Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against convictions - Offences against Commonwealth law committed wholly in New South Wales - Operation of s 68 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - Jurisdiction of District Court of Western Australia to convict and sentence not enlivened without entry of guilty plea in Court of Petty Sessions

Legislation:

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 68

[2000] WASCA 367

Result:

Appeal allowed
Convictions quashed

Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr D P A Moen
Respondent	:	Mr H G Dembo

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Cannon Bowden & Co
Respondent	:	Commonealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

R v Ellis (1973) 57 Cr App R 571

R v Grant [1975] WAR 163

Case(s) also cited:

Adlem v The Queen [1999] WASCA 1
Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13
Byrnes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1292
Cheng v The Queen [2000] HCA 53
Lam v The Queen [2000] WASCA 115
Lipohar v The Queen [1999] HCA 65
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 228
R v Hughes [2000] HCA 22
Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1
Ward v The Queen (1980) 142 CLR 308

[2000] WASCA 367

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an appeal against convictions following pleas of guilty entered by the appellant to two counts of knowingly making a false statement in writing for the purposes of obtaining an Australian Passport, contrary to s 10(1)(a) of the Passports Act 1938 (Cth).
At the conclusion of the hearing the Court announced that the appeal be allowed, the appeal and the convictions quashed and that brief reasons would be published later. These are those reasons.

Background

The appellant is ordinarily resident in New South Wales. During 1999 he was in custody in this State awaiting trial on offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). While he was in custody, the appellant was questioned about other matters. On 3 December 2000 he appeared in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth charged on complaint with two counts alleging that he made a false statement in writing for the purpose of obtaining an Australian passport. Both offences were said to have been committed in New South Wales, one on 8 June 1998 and the other on 2 October 1998. The offences are, of course, against Commonwealth law. He was also charged with two counts alleging conduct contrary to s 29(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). It is common ground that at the hearing in the Court of Petty Sessions the appellant was not…

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 Pinkstone v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 367
Case: [2000] WASCA 367
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pinkstone v The Queen, the appellant appealed against his convictions for multiple offences committed in New South Wales, asserting that the District Court of Western Australia lacked jurisdiction to try and sentence him. The appellant's contention centred on the application of section 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which pertains to the transfer of proceedings for Commonwealth offences from one court to another. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the District Court of Western Australia had jurisdiction as the appellant did not enter a plea of guilty in the Court of Petty Sessions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the District Court of Western Australia was empowered to convict and sentence the appellant for offences committed in New South Wales without the appellant entering a guilty plea in the Court of Petty Sessions, as required by section 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The court needed to determine whether the failure to enter a guilty plea in the Court of Petty Sessions rendered the appellant's trial and subsequent conviction in the District Court of Western Australia unlawful.

The court held that the appellant's convictions were indeed unlawful. The court found that section 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) expressly stipulates that the transfer of proceedings for a Commonwealth offence committed outside Western Australia to the District Court of Western Australia is contingent upon the accused person entering a plea of guilty in the Court of Petty Sessions. Since the appellant had not entered a plea of guilty, the District Court of Western Australia did not have jurisdiction to convict and sentence him. The court quashed the convictions, ruling that the appellant's trial and sentencing in the District Court of Western Australia were null and void.

The court ordered that the appellant's convictions be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the appropriate court in New South Wales for retrial. The court also made an order for the appellant's release from custody, pending any further proceedings in New South Wales.

Orders