R -v- JONES [1999] WASCA 194
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 194 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:68/1999 | 15 JULY 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J WALLWORK J | 8/10/99 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals allowedRetrials ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN WAYNE RONALD JONES PANTELLIS SALDARIS FREDERICK HENK RUDOLPHY |
Catchwords: | Crown appeals against acquittals upon direction of trial Judge Charges of obstructing member of Legislature Whether that person disqualified from being such a member by virtue of appointment to office of Agent General Whether earlier prospective appointment was validly cancelled by Governor Appointment held at pleasure may be cancelled by exercise of the Royal Prerogative by the Governor "Appointment" to office distinguished from "holding" office Before appointee holds office, he or she cannot be suspended or removed from office by the Governor but the decision to appoint may be revoked or cancelled |
Legislation: | Agent General Act 1895, s 1, s 4, s 51(1)(c) Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899, s 34 Extradition Act 1870 (UK), s 19 Interpretation Act 1984, s 52 |
Case References: | Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 Barton v The Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477 Bennett v Commonwealth of Australia [1980] 1 NSWLR 581 Carey v The Commonwealth (1921) 30 CLR 132 Dunn v R [1896] 1 QB 116 Fisher v R (1901) 26 VLR 781 Gould v Stewart [1896] AC 575 Menner v Falconer (1997) 74 IR 472 Parker & Ors v Miller & Ors, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980249; 8 May 1998 Re Governor-General and Executive Council of New South Wales; Ex parte Robertson (1858) 11 Moo PC 288 Shenton v Smith [1895] AC 229 Suttling v Director General of Education (1985) 3 NSWLR 427 Sykes v Cleary (1992) 176 CLR 77 Terrell v Secretary of State to the Colonies [1953] 2 QB 482 Washer v British Columbia Toll Highways and Bridges Authority (1965) 53 DLR (2d) 620 Wheaton v Maple (1893) 3 Ch 48 Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 399 Brown v West (1990) 169 CLR 195 Clydesdale v Hughes (1934) 36 WALR 73; 51 CLR 518 Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd v Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) [1997] 1 SCR 12 Palais Parking Station Pty Ltd v Shea (1977) 16 SASR 350 Re Warrego Election Petition (1899) 9 QLJ 249 Royse v Birley (1869) 4 LR4CP 296 R v Chapman [1931] 2 KB 606 R v Webster (1975) 132 CLR 270 Sue v Hill (1999) HCA 30 Tonkin v Brand [1962] WAR 2 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- JONES [1999] WASCA 194 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
WALLWORK J
- Appellant
AND
WAYNE RONALD JONES
- Respondent
Continue reading R v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Jones [1999] WASCA 194
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Jones, the Crown sought to appeal against the acquittals of the defendants, who were charged with obstructing members of the Legislature. The trial judge had directed the acquittals, leading to the Crown's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the trial. The case was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining the legal issues that arose from the case.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the accused individuals were disqualified from holding the position of members of the Legislature by virtue of their appointments to the office of Agent General. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the earlier prospective appointments were validly cancelled by the Governor. The court had to consider the extent of the Governor's authority in cancelling appointments and the distinction between being "appointed" to an office and "holding" that office. This distinction was crucial in determining whether the accused individuals could be held liable for obstructing members of the Legislature.
The court found that the Governor had the authority to cancel appointments to the office of Agent General before the appointee actually held the office. This meant that the earlier prospective appointments were validly cancelled, and the accused individuals were indeed disqualified from being members of the Legislature. The court emphasised the importance of the distinction between being appointed to an office and holding that office, as it determined the Governor's authority in cancelling appointments. The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the appeals should be allowed and that retrials should be ordered.
The court allowed the Crown's appeals and ordered retrials for the accused individuals. This decision recognised the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding appointments to public office and the Governor's authority in cancelling such appointments. The distinction between being appointed to an office and holding that office played a crucial role in the court's reasoning, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the appeals should be allowed and that the accused individuals should face retrials.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the accused individuals were disqualified from holding the position of members of the Legislature by virtue of their appointments to the office of Agent General. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the earlier prospective appointments were validly cancelled by the Governor. The court had to consider the extent of the Governor's authority in cancelling appointments and the distinction between being "appointed" to an office and "holding" that office. This distinction was crucial in determining whether the accused individuals could be held liable for obstructing members of the Legislature.
The court found that the Governor had the authority to cancel appointments to the office of Agent General before the appointee actually held the office. This meant that the earlier prospective appointments were validly cancelled, and the accused individuals were indeed disqualified from being members of the Legislature. The court emphasised the importance of the distinction between being appointed to an office and holding that office, as it determined the Governor's authority in cancelling appointments. The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the appeals should be allowed and that retrials should be ordered.
The court allowed the Crown's appeals and ordered retrials for the accused individuals. This decision recognised the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding appointments to public office and the Governor's authority in cancelling such appointments. The distinction between being appointed to an office and holding that office played a crucial role in the court's reasoning, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the appeals should be allowed and that the accused individuals should face retrials.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals allowedRetrials ordered
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.