R v Laws

Case [2000] NSWSC 880 29 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 50 NSWLR 96
116 A Crim R 63

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 880

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70025/00

HEARING DATE(S): 28.8.00, 29.8.00; 30.8.00

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Richard John Sinclair Laws

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0086

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Wood CJ at CL

COUNSEL : M. Tedeschi QC
W. Terracini SC with W. Muddle

SOLICITORS:
DPP
Hunt & Hunt

CATCHWORDS: CATCHWORDS - CRIMINAL LAW - meaning of the word "solicit" - s68A Jury Act 1977- question of law or fact - natural and ordinary meaning - special or confined meaning - jury process - protection of sanctity of the jury process

LEGISLATION CITED: ACTS CITED
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 26
Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s68A
Jury Amendment Act 1997 (NSW)

DECISION:

WOOD CJ at CL
Tuesday 29 August 2000
1
2 Regina v Richard John LAWS

JUDGMENT (Re the word ‘solicit’. See p60 of transcript)

The issue was whether ‘solicit’ in the context of the Jury Act has a special or confined meaning which requires a direction of law or a common meaning which should be left to the jury.
HELD:
1. The expression ‘solicit’ according to the standard definitions includes a wide range of synonyms. In the light of that circumstance and of the further circumstance that the defence contended that it should be understood in a limited sense involving a degree of pressure or persuasion, it was proper to determine, as a matter of law, whether it had a special or particular meaning in the context of the Jury Act.
R v H (1993) NZLR 129; Brutus v Cozens (1973) AC 854 distinguished..
1. The language of the section is clear and unambiguous. The word ‘solicit’ means to ask or make a request for information, or to attempt to obtain something. It does not require harassment, pressure or importuning.
Sweeney v Astle (1923) NZLR 1198; Azzopardi NSWCCA 1 October 1998; Murat Ay NSWCCA 30 October 1998 applied. Forgione (1969) SASR 248; Herring NSWCCA 24 November 1998; Rinaldi (1993) 68 ACrimR 284 considered

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

WOOD CJ at CL

TUESDAY 29 AUGUST 2000

70025/00 - REGINA V RICHARD JOHN SINCLAIR LAWS
JUDGMENT (Re the word 'solicit'. See p60 of transcript.)

3 HIS HONOUR: At the close of the Crown case Mr Terracini SC, for the accused, has raised a question concerning the manner in which the case is to be left to the jury in relation to the soliciting element of the charge that has been preferred under s68A of the Jury Act. The submission advanced has not been pursued in the context of a no case submission, but its resolution is said to affect the way in which the defence case might proceed. 4 Although it is somewhat irregular for such a matter to be raised…

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 Laws

Details

AGLC: R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 880
Case: [2000] NSWSC 880
Decision Date: 29 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Laws, appealed against his conviction for soliciting a person to commit an offence. The case involved the interpretation of the word "solicit" in the context of section 68A of the Jury Act 1977. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was whether the word "solicit" in the specified statute required a special or confined meaning, or if it should be interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense. The court also had to consider the implications of this interpretation on the jury process and the protection of its sanctity.

The court examined the ordinary and natural meaning of the word "solicit" and concluded that it should be interpreted in its general sense, rather than a confined or special meaning. The court found that the ordinary meaning of "solicit" encompassed any encouragement or persuasion to commit an offence. The court emphasised the importance of the jury's role in interpreting the law and the need to protect the sanctity of the jury process. The court held that the jury should be instructed to interpret the word "solicit" in its ordinary and natural sense, unless the statute clearly indicated a different meaning.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court held that the jury should have been instructed to interpret the word "solicit" in its ordinary and natural sense. The court emphasised that the jury plays a vital role in interpreting the law and ensuring that justice is served. The High Court's decision in this case provides guidance on the interpretation of statutory provisions involving the word "solicit" and the importance of protecting the sanctity of the jury process.

The High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The court held that the jury should have been instructed to interpret the word "solicit" in its ordinary and natural sense. The court emphasised that the jury plays a vital role in interpreting the law and ensuring that justice is served. The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the interpretation of statutory provisions involving the word "solicit" and the importance of protecting the sanctity of the jury process. The defendant was to be retried on the charge of soliciting a person to commit an offence, with the jury properly instructed on the meaning of the word "solicit".

Orders