Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Lowe

Regina v Lowe

Case [2003] NSWCCA 150 2 June 2003

Offences Against the Administration of Justice

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
57 NSWLR 102
139 A Crim R 240

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v LOWE [2003] NSWCCA 150

HEARING DATE(S): 8 and 23 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Sully J at 52; Buddin J at 53

DECISION: Para 51 of judgment

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - offences against the administration of justice - CRIMINAL LAW - whether offence against the administration of justice in Victoria punishable in New South Wales - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Interpretation Act 1987 s 12(1) - application of New South Wales statute to matters and things in and of New South Wales

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Interpretation Act 1987
Listening Devices Act 1984

CASES CITED: Brownlie v State Pollution Control Commission (1992) 27 NSWLR 78
Grannall v C. Geo Kelloway & Sons Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 36
Lipohar v R (1999) 200 CLR 485
Macleod v Attorney General (NSW) [1891] AC 455
Miller v TCN Channel 9 (1988) 36 ACR 92
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
R v Catanzariti (1995) 65 SASR 201
R v Isaac (1996) 87 A Crim R 513
R v Kron (1995) 78 ACR 474
Symes v Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 386
Thompson v R (1989) 169 CLR 1
Ward v R (1980) 142 CLR 308

PARTIES :
REGINA
v
SIMON LOWE

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60046/03

COUNSEL: Appellant: J C Papayanni
Crown: M C Grogan

SOLICITORS: Appellant: Jeffries & Associates
Crown: S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 01/11/0779

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Backhouse DCJ

60046/03
DC 01/11/0779

HANDLEY JA
SULLY J
BUDDIN J

2 June 2003

CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the administration of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – whether offence against the administration of justice in Victoria punishable in New South Wales

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Interpretation Act 1987 s 12(1) – application of New South Wales statute to matters and things in and of New South Wales

The appellant was convicted on a charge under s 322(a) of the Crimes Act of threatening a witness in circumstances of aggravation within s 324. The relevant count alleged that the appellant in Sydney had threatened to cause a detriment to the complainant with intent to influence her, a witness in a judicial proceeding at Melbourne Magistrate’s Court, to not attend as a witness. Section 324 authorised increased punishment or conduct within s 322(a) undertaken with intent to procure the acquittal of a person charged with a serious offence. The proceedings pending in the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court were committal proceedings for a serious offence. The appellant was sentenced on the basis of an aggravated offence under s 324. He appealed against his conviction and sentence on the relevant count on the grounds that the indictment did not disclose an offence because the judicial proceedings were in Victoria, and committal proceedings did not fall within s 324.

HELD

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 Regina v Lowe

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lowe [2003] NSWCCA 150
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 150
Decision Date: 2 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Lowe involved the defendant, Lowe, being charged with an offence against the administration of justice. The specific nature of the offence and the details surrounding it are not outlined in the provided text, but it is clear that the legal dispute centred on whether such an offence, committed in Victoria, was punishable under New South Wales law. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court, although the exact court is not specified. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the New South Wales statute could be applied to an offence that was committed in Victoria. This raised questions about the extra-territorial application of New South Wales criminal law.

The court examined the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1987, specifically section 12(1), to determine the applicability of New South Wales law to the offence in question. Section 12(1) generally states that a reference in a New South Wales statute to matters and things in and of New South Wales applies only to matters and things within the territorial limits of New South Wales. The court had to interpret this provision to decide if it could apply to an offence committed outside New South Wales. The court's reasoning likely involved a detailed analysis of the statutory language, the purpose of the legislation, and potentially precedent or policy considerations that guide the application of criminal statutes to extra-territorial conduct.

The outcome of the case hinged on the court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provision and its application to the facts of the case. If the court found that the New South Wales statute did not apply extra-territorially, then Lowe's offence, committed in Victoria, would not be punishable under New South Wales law. Conversely, if the statute was interpreted to have extra-territorial application, Lowe could be prosecuted in New South Wales for the offence committed in Victoria. The final orders of the court would depend on its determination of these legal issues.

Orders