Legal Research
Cases
Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex parte Stanton

Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex parte Stanton

Case [2015] WASC 357 29 September 2015

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: RE MAGISTRATE D TEMBY; EX PARTE STANTON [2015] WASC 357

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 2466 of 2015

MATTER :In the matter of an application under the Magistrates Court Act 2005, s 36 for a review order against Mr D Temby, Stipendiary Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Perth

EX PARTE
LLOYD PETER STANTON
Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Administration law - Application for a review order - Whether error of law by magistrate sufficient ground for review order under Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36 - Need for jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr D Jones

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Darren Jones Barrister and Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Abbott v Magistrate Malley [2012] WASC 420
Blum v Boothman [2014] WASC 432
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Jiang [2001] FCA 145; (2001) 111 FCR 395
Craig v The State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Peters [2010] WASC 139
Jago v District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531
Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 253 CLR 455
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Fortescue Metals Group Ltd; Ex parte Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2010] WASC 88
Re Magistrates Court of Western Australia; Ex parte Mansell [2013] WASC 120
Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex parte McCourt [2007] WASCA 125; (2007) 34 WAR 342
Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd (No 2) [2011] WASC 360
Seddon v Medical Assessment Panel [2011] WASC 237
Seiffert v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASCA 148
Stewart v City of Belmont [2013] WASC 366
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43; (2013) 252 CLR 480
Woodley v Minister for Indigenous Affairs [2009] WASC 251

BEECH J: This is an application for a review order in respect of a magistrate's decision to dismiss Mr Stanton's application for a permanent stay of the prosecution against him in the Magistrates Court.
This application was brought on urgently in circumstances where the trial of the prosecution in the Magistrates Court is listed for 2 October 2015.
For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the application.

The prosecution in the Magistrates Court

Mr Stanton is a serving police officer.
By prosecution notice dated 7 April 2014, Mr Stanton was charged with an offence against s 170 of the Criminal Code (WA) that between 10 and 11 February 2014 when required under a written law to give information to another person, knowingly gave information to the other person that was false in a material particular. The prosecution notice was issued by Detective Sergeant Ceri Skamp,…

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 Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex parte Stanton

Details

AGLC: Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357
Case: [2015] WASC 357
Decision Date: 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex parte Stanton involved an application for a review order, with Stanton seeking to challenge a decision made by Magistrate D Temby. The nature of the dispute was the magistrate's decision and whether it contained an error of law that warranted a review order under section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). Stanton argued that the magistrate's decision contained an error of law, which was sufficient ground for a review order. Magistrate D Temby and the respondent defended the decision, asserting that the error of law did not meet the threshold for a review order under the Act.

The legal issue before the court was whether an error of law by a magistrate alone was sufficient grounds for a review order, or whether the error had to be a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record. The court had to determine whether the error of law alleged by Stanton was substantial enough to warrant a review order under section 36 of the Act. The court also had to examine the nature of the error of law and whether it affected the fairness or legality of the decision-making process.

The court found that an error of law alone was not sufficient grounds for a review order under section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). The court held that the error of law must be a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record. In this case, the court found that the error of law did not rise to the level of a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record. The court concluded that the error of law did not affect the fairness or legality of the decision-making process and did not warrant a review order. The application for a review order was dismissed.

Orders