Legal Research
Cases
R v Pinkstone

R v Pinkstone

Case [2001] WASC 172 29 June 2001

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION	:	R -v- PINKSTONE & ORS [2001] WASC 172

CORAM

: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD

: 1 JUNE 2001

DELIVERED

: 29 JUNE 2001

FILE NO/S

:	IND 124 of 2001

BETWEEN

: THE QUEEN

AND
ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
WAYNE JOHN YANKO
MICHAEL BRAZIER
PAUL PHILLIP BRAZIER

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Indictment - Jurisdiction - Charges of State offences under Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) committed in Commonwealth place - Jurisdiction of State courts - Motion to quash - Demurrer

Constitutional law - Indictment charging offences committed in Commonwealth place in Western Australia - Whether offence committed on Commonwealth place in New South Wales - Whether State legislation can operate to give Western Australian courts jurisdiction - Whether infringement of s 80 Constitution as to place of trial

Constitutional law - State legislation applied to Commonwealth places - Trial on indictment - State indictment charging State offences - Whether valid

[2001] WASC 172

Legislation:

Commonwealth Constitution, s 52, s 80, s 117
Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), s 4, s 7, s 8, s 10, s

12, s 14

Result:

Motion to quash denied

Demurrer over-ruled

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown	:	Mr R E Cock QC & Ms G A Archer
The first-named accused	:	In person
The second-named accused :	Mr O P Holdenson QC
The third-named accused	:	Mr I Fraser
The fourth-named accused :	Mr I Fraser

Solicitors:

Crown	:	State Director of Public Prosecutions
The first-named accused	:	In person
The second-named accused :	Amidzic & Co
The third-named accused	:	Laurie Levy
The fourth-named accused :	A Palumbo

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

Bond (1992) 62 A Crim R 383
Brownlee v The Queen [2001] HCA 36
Carroll v Attorney-General for New South Wales (1993) 70 A Crim R 162
Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541
Cheng v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1482
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Kovess v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (1997) 74 FCR 297
Krakouer v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 202
Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 74 ALJR 282
Maginnis [1987] 1 AC 303
Manisco (1995) 79 A Crim R 213

[2001] WASC 172

Pelham (1995) 82 A Crim R 455
R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
R v Hofschuster (1993) 116 FLR 222
R v Phillips (1970) 125 CLR 93
R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 45
R v Talia & Ors [1996] 1 VR 462; (1995) 82 A Crim R 373
R v Willoughby [1975] WAR 19
Re Rozenes; Ex parte Burd (1994) 68 ALJR 372
Re Wakim; Ex p McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
Strassheim v Daily (1911) 221 US 280
Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461
Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1
Tucs v Algie (1985) 19 A Crim R 401
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538
Walton v Gardiner (1992-93) 177 CLR 378

Worthing v…

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 Pinkstone

Details

AGLC: R v Pinkstone [2001] WASC 172
Case: [2001] WASC 172
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Pinkstone, was charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) with offences occurring on Commonwealth land in Western Australia. The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was required to decide whether it had jurisdiction over the matter. The legal issues at the heart of the case centred around the extent of state jurisdiction over crimes committed on Commonwealth land within Western Australia, and whether such jurisdiction contravened section 80 of the Australian Constitution, which stipulates that certain federal crimes must be tried in the state where they were committed.

The court needed to determine whether the charges against Pinkstone, which were for state offences, could be validly prosecuted in a state court when the alleged offences occurred on Commonwealth land. This raised questions about the application of state legislation to federal areas, and whether this constituted an infringement of constitutional rights regarding the place of trial. The court also considered whether the state's legislation, which purported to extend jurisdiction to federal places within Western Australia, was compatible with the constitutional requirement that certain federal crimes be tried in the state where they were committed.

The Supreme Court held that the state legislation could not be applied to give jurisdiction over federal places within Western Australia, as it would infringe upon the constitutional guarantee of trial in the state where the offence was committed. The court found that the offences charged were in fact committed in New South Wales, which meant that the Western Australian courts lacked jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently, the court quashed the indictment against Pinkstone and dismissed the prosecution's demurrer. The final orders of the court were to quash the indictment and dismiss the prosecution's challenge to the demurrer, thereby affirming the importance of constitutional principles in determining jurisdictional boundaries in criminal cases.

Orders