R v Ward

Case [1978] HCA 27 22 June 1978

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs A.J.C. , Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Aickin JJ.

THE QUEEN V. WARD

(1978) 140 CLR 584

22 June 1978

Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy—Offences—Jurisdiction—Court not specially invested with bankruptcy jurisdiction—Appeal—Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss. 5, 27, 38*, 269, 273—judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 39 (2), 68. (1978) 140 C.L.R. 584, at p. 588.

Decision

June 22.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
The only question before the Court for decision in this appeal is whether the District Court of Queensland has jurisdiction to try and convict a person for offences committed against s. 269 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), as amended. The appellant contends that s. 39 (2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), as amended, which operates generally to invest federal jurisdiction in State courts, and s. 68 of the same Act confer jurisdiction on the District Court. The respondent contends that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act displace the operation of the Judiciary Act and that jurisdiction to try offences against the Bankruptcy Act on indictment is confined to the courts enumerated in s. 27 of that Act. (at p587)

2. Clearly the District Court of Queensland is not a court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy. The District Court is not included amongst the courts invested with jurisdiction in bankruptcy by s. 27 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended by Act No. 61 of 1976. The courts so invested with jurisdiction are the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Courts or the Courts of Insolvency of the various States and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. (at p587)

3. Section 5 of the Bankruptcy Act provides (inter alia) that "'bankruptcy', in relation to jurisdiction or proceedings, means any jurisdiction or proceedings under or by virtue of this Act". (at p587)

4. The first step in the respondent's argument is to say that the trial on indictment for an offence against the Bankruptcy Act constitutes "proceedings under or by virtue of this Act", which forms part of the jurisdiction invested by s. 27. Section 269 creates an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for three years. Section 273, which deals with trial of offences, provides:

"(1) Subject to this section, an offence against this Act, other than an offence that is punishable by a fine only, is punishable either on indictment or on summary conviction. (2) Where proceedings for an offence that is punishable as provided by the last preceding sub-section are brought in a court of summary jurisdiction, the court may either determine the proceedings or commit the defendant for trial, but shall not, if it determines the proceedings, impose a period of imprisonment exceeding one year in respect of the offence. (3) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, an offence against this Act that is punishable by a fine only is punishable by a court of summary jurisdiction. (4) The Court has jurisdiction to try summarily any offence against this Act. (5) Where proceedings for an offence other than…

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 Ward

Details

AGLC: R v Ward [1978] HCA 27
Case: [1978] HCA 27
Decision Date: 22 June 1978

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Ward* concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ward, against his conviction for the offence of conspiracy to defraud. The prosecution alleged that Ward, along with others, had engaged in a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth by falsely claiming tax deductions. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the applicant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the prosecution had proven the existence of a conspiracy and the applicant's participation in it, particularly in relation to the fraudulent intent required for the offence.

The High Court, in its judgment, analysed the evidence in detail, focusing on the inferences that could be drawn from the conduct of the applicant and his co-conspirators. The court applied the principles of criminal law relating to conspiracy, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. The court considered the nature of the alleged fraudulent scheme and the applicant's knowledge and involvement in it.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered that a verdict of acquittal be entered.

Orders