Re Maddern; Ex Parte Australian Hotels Association

The applicant, the Australian Hotels Association, sought a writ of prohibition against the respondent, Mr. Maddern, a stipendiary magistrate, to prevent him from proceeding with a prosecution against the applicant under the *Liquor Licensing Act 1985* (SA). The prosecution alleged that the applicant had contravened section 162(1) of the Act by failing to lodge a return with the Liquor Licensing Commission. The applicant contended that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, arguing that the prosecution was invalid due to a failure to comply with a condition precedent to the laying of an information.

The central legal issue before Toohey J. of the High Court was whether the information laid by a police officer was a valid information for the purposes of commencing proceedings under the *Summary Offences Act 1953* (SA), given that the police officer had not personally satisfied himself that an offence had been committed. The applicant argued that the *Liquor Licensing Act* imposed a specific requirement that the informant must be satisfied of the commission of an offence before laying an information, and that this requirement had not been met.

Toohey J. considered the interplay between the *Liquor Licensing Act* and the *Summary Offences Act*. His Honour noted that while the *Liquor Licensing Act* did contain provisions relating to the laying of informations, the *Summary Offences Act* provided the general procedural framework for summary proceedings. The Court held that the requirement for an informant to be satisfied of the commission of an offence was not a condition precedent to the laying of an information in the context of the *Summary Offences Act*. Rather, it was a matter going to the sufficiency of the information, which could be challenged during the proceedings. The magistrate was therefore not acting without jurisdiction.

The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.