Legal Research
Cases
R v Porter

R v Porter

Case [2001] NSWCCA 441 2 November 2001

Constitutional Validity

Criminal Liability

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Constitutional Law

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
126 A Crim R 83

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v PORTER [2001] NSWCCA 441

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60445/01

HEARING DATE(S): 22/10/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 November 2001

PARTIES :

Christopher Mark Porter (Appellant)
Attorney General of New South Wales (Respondent)
Attorney General of the Commonwealth (Intervening)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Studdert J at 88; Ireland AJ at 89

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

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

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : C C Waterstreet (Appellant)
M G Sexton SC / B Baker (Attorney General NSW)
D Bennett QC / G Hill (Attorney General Cth)

SOLICITORS: Kings Lawyers (Appellant)
I V Knight (Attorney General NSW)
Australian Government Solicitor (Attorney General Cth)

CATCHWORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - validity of Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) - no abrogation of the legislative power of the Commonwealth - CRIMINAL LAW - Commonwealth offence - whether Commonwealth DPP has exclusive authority to conduct proceedings - Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) s6(1) - Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), ss5(3) and (4) - CRIMINAL LAW - Commonwealth offence - whether State DPP can conduct proceedings - Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), s24 - Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), s6(2) - CRIMINAL LAW - Commonwealth offence - whether State police can arrest and search in a Commonwealth place - Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), ss4(1), 5(3) and 6(2) - Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss352 and 357E - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - no "law of a State" and no inconsistency - Constitution, s109 - Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth), s82 - Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s527C

LEGISLATION CITED: Commonwealth Places (Administration of Laws) Act 1970 (NSW)
Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth)
Constitution
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Proceeds of Crimes Act 1987 (Cth)
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 1986 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1992-1993) 177 CLR 485
Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213
Butler v Attorney General (Vic) (1961) 106 CLR 268
Cobb & Co Ltd v Kropp [1967] 1 AC 141
Mistretta v United States 488 US 361 (1989)
R v Holmes (1988) 93 FLR 405
R v Pinkstone [2001] WASC 172
The Queen v Phillips (1970) 125 CLR 93
United States v Sharpnack 355 US 286 (1958)
Worthing v Rowell and Muston Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 89

DECISION: Paragraph [5] of the Stated Case answered "No determination was erroneous in law".

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60445/01

SPIGELMAN CJ

STUDDERT J

IRELAND AJ

Friday 2 November 2001

REGINA v Christopher Mark PORTER

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 [2001] NSWCCA 441
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 441
Decision Date: 2 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Porter involved a dispute regarding the validity and applicability of Commonwealth legislation in the context of criminal proceedings and police powers. The dispute arose in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with interpreting the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) and its interaction with state law. The central legal issues the Court addressed included whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had exclusive authority to conduct criminal proceedings in Commonwealth places, whether a State DPP could conduct such proceedings, and whether State police could arrest and search individuals in Commonwealth places. These questions required the Court to consider the interplay between federal and state legislative powers, as well as the constitutional constraints on state laws that conflict with federal law.

The Court's reasoning centred on the interpretation of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) and its provisions regarding the application of federal and state laws in Commonwealth places. The Court found that the Act did not abrogate the legislative power of the Commonwealth nor did it render any "law of a State" invalid or inconsistent with federal law. The Court held that the Commonwealth DPP has exclusive authority to conduct criminal proceedings in Commonwealth places, but clarified that the State DPP could also conduct such proceedings where explicitly authorised by federal law. The Court further held that State police could not arrest or search in Commonwealth places unless specifically authorised by federal law, thereby affirming the primacy of federal legislative authority in these matters.

The High Court ultimately decided that the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) did not conflict with the Constitution or with state laws, and that the Commonwealth DPP has exclusive authority to conduct criminal proceedings in Commonwealth places. The Court also determined that the State DPP could conduct such proceedings if authorised by federal law, and that State police are restricted in their powers within Commonwealth places unless authorised by federal legislation. These findings underscored the importance of respecting the legislative supremacy of the Commonwealth in areas designated as Commonwealth places, while also acknowledging the potential role of State authorities under specific federal authorisations.

Orders