R v L IN THE MATTER of a submission pursuant to Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976 of a question of law for the determination of a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia No. ACTG1 of 1994 FED No. 340/94 Number of pages - 7 Appeal - Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (1994) 49 FCR 534 (1994) 122 ALR 464
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BURCHETT, MILES AND RYAN JJ
CATCHWORDS
Appeal - competency of appeal - special case on a question of law submitted under s.30A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - whether reference in s.30A to Director of Public Prosecutions refers to the Commonwealth DPP or the Australian Capital Territory DPP.
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 - unless contrary intention appears, reference to any officer or office will be construed as being in and for the Commonwealth - limited use of extrinsic material where language of legislation is clear.
Solicitors for the appellant: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. B. Salmon, QC
with Mr. J. Brewster
Solicitors for the respondent: McPhillamy, Cummins and Gibson
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
BURCHETT, MILES AND RYAN JJ This appeal comes before a Full Court as a reference appeal under s.30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (the Federal Court Act), the relevant subsections of which provide as follows:
"30A(1) Where:
(a) a person has been tried on an indictment in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory: and
(b) the person has been acquitted in respect of the whole or any part of the indictment:
the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions may, within 6 weeks after the conclusion of the trial, or within such longer period as the Court, on sufficient cause being shown, allows, submit for the determination of a Full Court any question of law arising at or in connection with the trial.
(2) The Full Court shall hear and determine the question.
(3) A determination made by the Court under this section does not invalidate or affect any verdict or decision given at the trial.
(4) Any person who was charged at the trial in, or affected by the decision of, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory is entitled to be heard in the proceedings to determine the question.
(5) If it appears that a…
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 L
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v. L IN THE MATTER of a submission pursuant to Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976 of a question of law for the determination of a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [1994] FCA 340 ((1994) 49 FCR 534; (1994) 122 ALR 464)
Case
[1994] FCA 340
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v L involved an appeal against a decision made by a lower court. The appellant sought to challenge the competency of the appeal, with a specific focus on the submission of a special case on a question of law under section 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The central issue was whether the reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions in section 30A referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory.
The court had to determine the scope and application of section 30A, focusing particularly on the interpretation of the term 'Director of Public Prosecutions'. This required the court to examine the legislative intent and context surrounding the provision to ascertain the correct referent in the statute. The court also had to consider the implications of its interpretation on the procedural rights of the appellant and the administration of justice in the Australian Capital Territory.
After a detailed examination of the statutory language, the court concluded that the term 'Director of Public Prosecutions' in section 30A referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The reasoning was based on the broader legislative context and the intention to maintain a uniform approach to the appeal process across different jurisdictions. The court held that this interpretation was consistent with the legislative purpose and did not undermine the integrity of the appeal process in the Australian Capital Territory. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs.
The court's decision clarified the scope of section 30A and affirmed the authority of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in the context of appeals under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. This ruling provides guidance for future cases involving similar statutory interpretations and the competency of appeals.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS THAT
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.