Criminal law and procedure - Corporations - Application of s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution to trial on indictment of offence against the Corporations Law (WA) - Application of laws of evidence of Western Australia - Application of s 578 of Criminal Code (WA)

Legislation:

Commonwealth Constitution s 80

Corporations (Commonwealth Authorities and Officers) Regulations 1990 reg 3(1)(d)
Corporations (Western Australia) Act 1990 s 3, s 7, s 9, s 26, s 28, s 29, s 31, s 55, s 73
Corporations Act 1989 (Cth) s 47, s 82
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 3, s 5(c), s 1064, s 1311, s 1370, s 1383
Corporations Law 1990 (WA) s 1064(1), s 1311(1)(a)
Corporations (Ancillary Provisions) Act (Cth) s 7(2), (3)
Criminal Code (WA) s 378, s 489, s 578, s 614
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) s 6(1), s 7, s 8
District Court Act 1970 (WA) s 49
Interpretation Act (Cth) s 23(b)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 37
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 68(2), s 79

Juries Act 1957 (WA) s 41

Result:

Questions on reference answered (1) Yes; (2) The laws of evidence of Western Australia apply; (3) No

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr S D Hall
Respondent:     Mr S A Shirrefs
Attorney General of WA :     Ms C F Jenkins

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:     Gary Massey & Associates
Attorney General of WA :     State Crown Solicitor (Intervenor)

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

Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541
Kiely v R [1974] WAR 180
Peel v The Queen (1971) 125 CLR 447
R v Cook; Ex parte Commonwealth DPP (1996) 130 FLR 354
R v Drury (1983) 50 ALR 159
R v Hannes [2000] NSW CCA 503
R v Hughes [2000] HCA 22; (2000) 74 ALJR 802
R v Marinovich [1988] 1 WAR 343
Re Colina; Ex parte Torney [1999] HCA 57; (1999) 73 ALJR 1576
Re Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In Liq; Bond v England (1997) 140 FLR 202
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Craven [No 1] (1995) 120 FLR 427
The King v Kidman & Ors (1915) 20 CLR 425
Williams v The King [No 2] (1934) 50 CLR 551

Case(s) also cited:

Brown v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 171
Commissioner of Taxation v Scully [2000] HCA 6; (2000) 74 ALJR 504
Connell v R (No 6) (1994) 12 WAR 133
Duke v R [1999] WASCA 215
Levy v State of Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579
Martin v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940219; 13 December 1993
Maxwell v Murphy (1956) 96 CLR 261
Newell v R (1936) 55 CLR 707

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 R v Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [2001] WASCA 300
Case: [2001] WASCA 300
Decision Date: 28 SEPTEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hughes, the dispute revolved around the applicability of section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution in relation to a trial on indictment for an offence against the Corporations Law (WA). The case was heard in the relevant court, which was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the application of constitutional provisions and evidence laws in the context of a criminal trial. The court needed to ascertain whether the constitutional protections afforded by section 80 were applicable to the proceedings, and if so, how they interacted with the evidence laws of Western Australia, specifically section 578 of the Criminal Code (WA).

The court was tasked with interpreting the scope of section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which pertains to the trial on indictment of offences against the Commonwealth. It had to consider whether this constitutional provision extended to offences under state law, such as those governed by the Corporations Law (WA). Additionally, the court needed to assess how the principles enshrined in section 80 interacted with the provisions of the Criminal Code (WA), particularly section 578, which deals with the admissibility of evidence. The court's role was to balance these legal frameworks to ensure that the accused's rights were protected in accordance with both federal and state laws.

In its reasoning, the court determined that section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution did apply to trials on indictment for offences against the Corporations Law (WA), thereby extending constitutional protections to these proceedings. The court found that the principles of section 80 could not be overridden by state law, including section 578 of the Criminal Code (WA). As a result, the court held that the evidence laws of Western Australia must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the constitutional protections provided by section 80. This interpretation ensured that the accused's rights were safeguarded in accordance with both federal and state legal frameworks.

The final orders of the court reflected its determination that the constitutional protections of section 80 applied to the proceedings, and that the evidence laws of Western Australia, including section 578 of the Criminal Code (WA), must be applied in a manner that did not contravene these protections. This ruling underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between federal and state legal systems in the context of criminal trials.

Orders