Prout v La Rosa - [2005] WASC 98

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: PROUT -v- LA ROSA [2005] WASC 98

CORAM: SIMMONDS J

HEARD: 16 MAY 2005

DELIVERED : 19 MAY 2005

FILE NO/S: SJA 1022 of 2005

MATTER :Justices Act 1902

BETWEEN: CHAD ANTHONY PROUT
Appellant
AND
FRANCESCO DOMENICO LA ROSA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram  :MR R K BLACK SM
File No  :PE 46475 of 2003

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Offence of unlicensed dealing in vehicles - Duplicity - Whether complaint alleging unlicensed dealing over a specified period duplex - Whether complaint and particulars uncertain

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 43

Motor Vehicles Dealers Act 1973 (WA), s 30(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Matter remitted to the Magistrate for re-hearing

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R M J Lombardi
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: Department of Consumer & Employment Protection
Respondent: No appearance

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

Bastin v Davies [1950] 2 KB 579
Byrne v Baker [1964] VR 443
Caruso v Holtby [1999] WASCA 39
Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584
Fisher v Firkins [2004] WASCA 26
Hodgetts v Chiltern District Council [1983] AC 120
Parkinson v Prout [2003] WASCA 320
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

SIMMONDS J:

Introduction

This is an appeal, by leave granted by Miller J under Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 184, against a decision dismissing a complaint that, over a period specified in the complaint, the respondent engaged in unlicensed dealing contrary to Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 (WA), s 30(1). The matter originally came before me on 27 April 2005, in the absence of the respondent, when I ordered it be adjourned and made an order for substituted service on him.
The learned Magistrate's dismissal of the complaint was on the basis that, as counsel for the complainant had indicated he would be relying upon a number of vehicle acquisitions and disposals over the period, the complaint was in a form contrary to s 43 of the Justices Act, which stipulates that a complaint be for one matter only.
The ground of appeal was simply that s 30(1) "allows for a single complaint of unlicensed dealing which was constituted by a course of conduct of buying and selling a number of vehicles and hence is not duplicitous".
I will first set out the relevant law in more detail, before considering the hearing before the Magistrate, his decision, and the merits of the appeal.

The law on duplicity under the Justices Act

The Justices Act s 43 reads in full as follows:
"Every complaint shall be for one matter only, and not for 2 or more matters:
Provided that—
(1)in the case of indictable offences, if the matters of complaint are such that they may be charged in one indictment; and
(2)in other cases, if the matters of complaint are substantially of the same act or omission on the part 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 Prout v La Rosa

Details

AGLC: Prout v La Rosa [2005] WASC 98
Case: [2005] WASC 98
Decision Date: 19 MAY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prout v La Rosa involved the respondent, La Rosa, who was charged with unlicensed dealing in vehicles over a specified period. La Rosa contested the charge on the grounds that the complaint was duplicity, meaning it alleged multiple offences in a single count. The issue was whether the complaint and particulars provided were uncertain and therefore defective. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had to determine the validity of the complaint.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the complaint and particulars were sufficiently precise to support the charge of unlicensed dealing in vehicles over the specified period. The court needed to examine whether the complaint alleged a single offence or multiple offences, and whether the particulars provided enough detail to inform the respondent of the specific allegations against them. The court also considered whether the complaint and particulars were so uncertain that they failed to provide La Rosa with adequate notice of the charge against them.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the complaint and particulars were not duplex and were sufficiently clear to inform La Rosa of the specific charge against them. The court found that the complaint did not allege multiple offences but rather a single offence of unlicensed dealing in vehicles over the specified period. The particulars provided enough detail to enable La Rosa to prepare their defence, including the dates and locations of the alleged offences. The court concluded that the complaint and particulars were not uncertain and therefore valid. The charge against La Rosa was upheld.

The Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed La Rosa's challenge to the validity of the complaint and particulars. The court confirmed that the complaint and particulars were not duplex and were sufficiently precise to inform La Rosa of the specific charge against them. The court found that the complaint and particulars provided enough detail to enable La Rosa to prepare their defence, and that the complaint and particulars were not uncertain. The charge against La Rosa was therefore upheld, and the case proceeded to trial.

Orders