JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: RASPUDIC -v- SINGH [2024] WASC 317
CORAM: WHITBY J
HEARD: 12 AUGUST 2024
DELIVERED : 2 SEPTEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S: SJA 1017 of 2024
BETWEEN: JESSICA MAE RASPUDIC
Appellant
AND
TARUNVEER SINGH
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No: SJA 1017 of 2024
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE T WATTS
File Number : PE 65135/2023, PE 65136/2023
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Civil Aviation Regulation 1998 (Cth) - Vaping on a plane - Plea of guilty entered - Whether elements of the offence satisfied - Whether miscarriage of justice
Statutory construction - Meaning of 'for a flight' and 'pilot in command' in Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (Cth) reg 91.530
Criminal law - Sentencing - Section 19B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Two stage test - Whether offences were of a 'trivial nature' - Whether express or implied error demonstrated
Legislation:
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth)
Air Navigation Regulations 2016 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 19) Regulations 2018 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Result:
Leave to appeal on ground 1 granted
Leave to appeal on ground 2 refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | C T Huntly |
| Respondent | : | K P Kearney & S D Fishbourne |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Gregory Ian Wolff Solicitors |
| Respondent | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 719
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Dick [2007] NSWCA 190; (2007) 242 ALR 152
Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union [2017] HCA 54
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 286
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2016] FCA 1108
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Haneef [2007] FCAFA 203; 243 ALR 606
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2020] HCA 29
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Russell v Stephen [2013] WASCA 284
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193
SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles [2018] HCA 55
Smith v Hazlitt [2011] WASC 154
WHITBY J:
Introduction
On 9 February 2024, the appellant, Ms Jessica Raspudic, was convicted of two counts of smoking on an aircraft contrary to reg 91.530(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (Cth) (Regulations). The appellant…
Continue reading Raspudic v Singh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Raspudic v Singh [2024] WASC 317
- Case
- [2024] WASC 317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the appellant's conduct satisfied the elements of the offence under regulation 91.530 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (Cth). The court also had to determine the meaning of the terms 'for a flight' and 'pilot in command' within the regulation. The court was tasked with examining whether the conduct contravened the purpose of the legislation and whether there had been an error in the primary judgment that led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the offences were of a trivial nature and if there had been an error in sentencing under section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The court found that the appellant's conduct did not contravene the purpose of the legislation. It held that the word 'for' in regulation 91.530 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (Cth) should be construed to mean in connection with a flight, not during a flight. The court concluded that the conduct occurred in connection with a flight, not during a flight, and therefore did not contravene the regulation. The court further held that there had been no miscarriage of justice and that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed. The court also held that the offences were not of a trivial nature and that there had been no error in sentencing under section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The court ordered that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of the appellant be affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The purpose of the legislation may be ascertained from express statements of objectives in the legislation itself and/or by reference to the scheme and function of the legislation overall. Extrinsic materials such as Second Reading Speeches, Explanatory Memoranda or Reports of Law Reform Commissions may assist in determining the purpose of legislation and the meaning to be given to words contained therein.[18] [18] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Haneef [2007] FCAFA 203; 243 ALR 606 [105]; Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2020] HCA 29 [96] - [98]. However, it is not open for a court to legislate a meaning to promote the purpose of legislation; that meaning must be found in the words of the legislation themselves.[19] [19] Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union [2017] HCA 54 [52]. Two competing constructions of the term 'for a flight' are before the court. The first, put forth by the appellant, is to construe 'for' as meaning during a flight. The second, put forth by the respondent, is to construe 'for' as meaning in connection with a flight; that is, the word 'for' indicates a connection or relationship between the person and a flight. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Ltd,[20] the High Court was required to consider the phrase 'the supply for consideration' (emphasis added) in the context of the definition of 'taxable supplies' in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth). The definition of 'taxable supplies' provides that a party makes a taxable supply if, inter alia, that party makes 'the supply for consideration'. The High Court, in the majority decision, held that the word 'for' in this context requires a 'connection or relationship between the supply and the consideration'.[21][20] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 286 [14].[21] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Ltd [14]. In Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents,[22] the issue before Jagot J (as her Honour then was) was the proper construction of the definition of 'relevant proceedings' in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act), which term was defined as including 'court proceedings for infringement of the patent' (emphasis added). Her Honour, in acknowledging that the potential ambiguity associated with the word 'for' was not unknown to the law,[23] said:[24]… The relevant conjunction for present purposes is 'court proceedings … for infringement of the patent'. The word 'for' is a preposition. The function of the word 'for' is to express a relationship between two matters (here, the proceedings and the infringement). The question is thus the character of the relationship between 'the proceedings' and 'infringement' which the definition of 'relevant proceedings' requires. [22] Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2016] FCA 1108 (Jones Tulloch).[23] Jones Tulloch [11] citing, inter alia, Unsworth v Commissioner for Railways (1958) 101 CLR 73; and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Dick [2007] NSWCA 190; (2007) 242 ALR 152.[24] Jones Tulloch [13].