RE WOODS; EX PARTE BRAYSICH [2003] WASC 143

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 143
Published:	31/07/2003
Case No:	CIV:1851/2003	Heard:	23 JULY 2003
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	23/07/03
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted, Order nisi for prohibition issued
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JEFFREY JOSEPH BRAYSICH ASIC
Catchwords:	Prerogative writs Prohibition Application for order nisi Test Prosecution on complaint before Stipendiary Magistrate Committal hearing Creating false or misleading appearance with respect to market for securities Whether offence "committed, begun or completed" in Western Australia Whether Magistrate has jurisdiction
Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 998, s 1338B(8)
Case References:	General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 King-Brooks v Roberts (1991) 5 WAR 500 Re His Honour Judge Hammond & Ors; Ex parte Roddan (1996) 17 WAR 50 Re Lawrence; Ex parte Moltoni & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 980010; 16 January 1998 Talbot v Lane (1994) 14 WAR 120 Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100 Re Capobianco, Principal Building Surveyor of the City of Melville; Ex parte Castelli, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980567; 25 September 1998 Re Matthews; Ex parte Mackenzie [2000] WASC 147 Re Robins SM; Ex parte Western Australian Newspapers Ltd (1999) 20 WAR 511 Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : RE WOODS; EX PARTE BRAYSICH [2003] WASC 143 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 23 JULY 2003 DELIVERED : 23 JULY 2003 PUBLISHED : 31 JULY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1851 of 2003 MATTER : Application for a Writ of Prohibition against ELIZABETH ADELE WOODS, DEPUTY CHIEF STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE at the Court of Petty Sessions Perth EX PARTE

JEFFREY JOSEPH BRAYSICH

Applicant

Catchwords:

Prerogative writs - Prohibition - Application for order nisi - Test - Prosecution on complaint before Stipendiary Magistrate - Committal hearing - Creating false or misleading appearance with respect to market for securities - Whether offence "committed, begun or completed" in Western Australia - Whether Magistrate has jurisdiction

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 998, s 1338B(8)

(Page 2)

Result:

Application granted

Order nisi for prohibition issued

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr G R Hancy

Australian Securities &

Investments Commission : Ms E C J Needham

Solicitors:

Applicant : Atanaskovic Hartnell

Australian Securities &

Investments Commission : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
King-Brooks v Roberts (1991) 5 WAR 500
Re His Honour Judge Hammond & Ors; Ex parte Roddan (1996) 17 WAR 50
Re Lawrence; Ex parte Moltoni & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 980010; 16 January 1998
Talbot v Lane (1994) 14 WAR 120

Case(s) also cited:

Craig v State of South Australia…

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 Woods

Details

AGLC: Re Woods [2003] WASC 143
Case: [2003] WASC 143
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Woods, the applicant sought a prerogative writ of prohibition to prevent the Stipendiary Magistrate of the Perth Magistrates Court from proceeding with the prosecution of the applicant on charges related to creating a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for securities. The applicant argued that the alleged offence did not occur in Western Australia and that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The dispute centred on whether the Magistrate had the authority to conduct a committal hearing for the alleged offence under the relevant statutory provisions.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the offence charged, which involved creating a false or misleading appearance in the market for securities, was committed, begun or completed in Western Australia. If the offence did not occur within the jurisdiction of the Perth Magistrates Court, the court would lack the authority to proceed with the prosecution. The court also needed to determine whether the Stipendiary Magistrate had jurisdiction to conduct a committal hearing for the alleged offence under the applicable legislation.

The court found that the alleged offence did not occur in Western Australia and that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution. The court held that since the offence was not committed, begun or completed within the jurisdiction, the Perth Magistrates Court did not have the authority to conduct a committal hearing. Consequently, the court granted the application and issued an order nisi for prohibition, preventing the Stipendiary Magistrate from proceeding with the prosecution on the charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted, Order nisi for prohibition issued

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

Full text does not contain this section.