Legal Research
Cases
R v Porter

R v Porter

Case [2004] NSWCCA 353 13 October 2004

Criminal Liability

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
149 A Crim R 112
61 NSWLR 384

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v PORTER [2004] NSWCCA 353

HEARING DATE(S): 20 September 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Barr J at 46; Hoeben J at 47

DECISION: Question answered "No"

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW -- Proper construction of words "in accordance with their tenor" in s4(1) of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act -- Relationship between s 12 Interpretation Act and s527C Crimes Act -- Whether s527C of Crimes Act requires stealing or unlawful obtaining to occur in NSW

LEGISLATION CITED: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 s4(1)
Crimes Act 1900 s527C
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 324(1)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s12
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Police Act 1892 (WA) s 69
Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas) s39(1)
Summary Offences Act (NT) s61(2)
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 41(1)
Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s26(1)
Summary Offences Act 1970 (NSW)
Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 (Qld) s25(1)

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Owens (No 2) (1953) 88 CLR 168
Commonwealth v State of Western Australia (1999) 196 CLR 392
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union (2004) 209 ALR 116
English v R (1989) 17 NSWLR 149
Farrelll v Alexander [1977] AC 59
Flaherty v Girgis (1987) 162 CLR 574
Foster v The Queen (1967) 118 CLR 117
Grant v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 503
John Robertson & Co Ltd (in liq) v Ferguson Transformers Pty Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 65
Lipohar v R (1999) 200 CLR 485
Pedersen v Young (1964) 110 CLR 162
Pinkstone v The Queen (2004) ALJR 797
R v Carr and Wilson (1883) 10 QBD 76
R v Chan (1992) 28 NSWLR 421
R v Chard [1984] AC 279
R v Debruiel (1861) 11 Cox C.C 207
R v Ellis [1899] 1 QB 230
R v Kron (1995) 78 A Crim R 474
R v Porter (2001) 53 NSWLR 354
R v Porter (2004) 141 A Crim R 593
Re: Alcan Australia Limited Ex Parte Federation of Industrial Engineering Employees (1994) 181 CLR 96
Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust v Fern Tree Gully Corporation (1952) 85 CLR 159
Solomons v District Court of New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 119
The Queen v Phillips (1970) 125 CLR 93
The Queen v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381
Thwaites v O'Sullivan [1965] SASR 34
Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions [1971]AC 537
Zickar v M G H Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 187 CLR 310

PARTIES :
REGINA
Christopher Mark PORTER

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1930

COUNSEL: C Waterstreet (Appellant)
D M L Woodburne (Respondent Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Kings Lawyers (Appellant)
S Kavanagh (Respondent Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/12/1283

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Mahoney ADCJ

2004/1930

SPIGELMAN CJ
BARR J
HOEBEN J
13 OCTOBER 2004

REGINA v Christopher Mark PORTER

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ:

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 Porter

Details

AGLC: R v Porter [2004] NSWCCA 353
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 353
Decision Date: 13 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Porter involved the accused, Porter, who was charged with an offence under s527C of the Crimes Act. The dispute centred on the proper interpretation of the terms "in accordance with their tenor" in s4(1) of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act and the interplay with s 12 of the Interpretation Act. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the offence in s527C of the Crimes Act requires the act of stealing or unlawful obtaining to have occurred within New South Wales.

The court had to decide if the words "in accordance with their tenor" in s4(1) of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act mandated the application of New South Wales law to the interpretation of s527C of the Crimes Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess the relationship between s 12 of the Interpretation Act and s527C of the Crimes Act, particularly whether s527C required the act of stealing or unlawful obtaining to occur within New South Wales. The primary issue was whether the court should apply New South Wales law to the interpretation of s527C of the Crimes Act and whether the offence requires the act of stealing or unlawful obtaining to occur in New South Wales.

The court found that the words "in accordance with their tenor" in s4(1) of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act required the application of New South Wales law to the interpretation of s527C of the Crimes Act. It concluded that s 12 of the Interpretation Act did not apply to the interpretation of s527C of the Crimes Act. Consequently, the court held that s527C of the Crimes Act did not require the act of stealing or unlawful obtaining to occur within New South Wales. The court emphasised that the offence under s527C was not dependent on the geographical location of the act of stealing or unlawful obtaining, but rather on the application of New South Wales law to the interpretation of the provision.

The final orders of the court were that the words "in accordance with their tenor" in s4(1) of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act mandated the application of New South Wales law to the interpretation of s527C of the Crimes Act. The court also held that s527C of the Crimes Act did not require the act of stealing or unlawful obtaining to occur within New South Wales. The court's decision clarified the proper construction of the relevant statutory provisions and provided guidance on the application of New South Wales law in interpreting federal criminal offences.

Orders