Regina v O'Meara - [2001] NSWCCA 340

Reported Decision:
124 A Crim R 493

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v O'MEARA [2001] NSWCCA 340

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60372/01

HEARING DATE(S): 31 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 September 2001

PARTIES :

Kenneth Ian O'Meara - Applicant
Crown

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Sully J at 13; Dowd J at 14

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sweeney LCM

COUNSEL : Applicant - In person
M A Wigney - Crown

SOLICITORS: Applicant - In person
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - error in committal proceedings - whether Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to issue relief - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Justices Act 1902
Crimes Act 1914 (Cwth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cwth)

CASES CITED:
R v Buckett (1992) 61 A CrimR 49
Lamb v Moss (1983) 76 FLR 296
Steffan v R (1993) 30 NSWLR 633

DECISION: Application dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60372/01

SHELLER JA
SULLY J
DOWD J

FRIDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 2001

Regina v Kenneth Ian O’Meara

The claimant sought leave to appeal, pursuant to s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, against a decision by a Magistrate to admit evidence of certain witnesses in the course of committal proceedings against him. The claimant had been charged with the offence of defrauding the Commonwealth. The claimant submitted that this evidence was inadmissible because the requirements of ss48B and 48D of the Justices Act 1902 had not been complied with.

Held: (per Sheller JA, Sully and Dowd JJ agreeing):

The Court lacked jurisdiction to determine this claim:

(1) Section 9 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, a State court did not have jurisdiction to review a decision to which the section applied. A decision to which the section applies is defined as a decision of an administrative character made under an Act of the Parliament.

(2) A committal order is not an interlocutory order but is a decision of an administrative character. R v Buckett (1992) 61 A CrimR 49, applied.

(3) As the claimant had been committed for trial for a Commonwealth offence, the decision to commit was made under an Act of the Parliament.

(4) The order sought by the claimant involved a "review" within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

ORDERS

Application dismissed.

*********

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60372/01

SHELLER JA
SULLY J
DOWD J

FRIDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 2001

Regina v Kenneth Ian O’Meara

Judgment

1 SHELLER JA:

This application for leave to appeal (No 60372/01) is brought by Kenneth Ian O'Meara pursuant to s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. That section applies, inter alia, to proceedings (including committal proceedings) for the prosecution of offenders on indictment in the Supreme Court or in the District Court (subs

(1)). The Attorney…

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 O'Meara

Details

AGLC: Regina v O'Meara [2001] NSWCCA 340
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 340
Decision Date: 7 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought before the High Court by the respondent, O'Meara, against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an error in committal proceedings that led to O'Meara being unlawfully committed to stand trial for serious criminal offences. The Court of Criminal Appeal had intervened to correct the error and quashed the committal order. O'Meara sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal to issue such relief, specifically under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had the jurisdiction to issue the relief it did, and if so, whether such jurisdiction could be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The court had to determine the extent of the Court of Criminal Appeal's powers in the context of correcting errors in committal proceedings and whether these powers could be subject to judicial review under federal legislation. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the interplay between state and federal judicial review mechanisms.

The court held that the Court of Criminal Appeal did possess the jurisdiction to issue the relief it did, as it was exercising its inherent jurisdiction to correct errors in legal proceedings. The court found that this jurisdiction was not an 'administrative decision' within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and thus, it was not subject to review under that Act. The court reasoned that the Act was concerned with reviewing decisions made in the exercise of public administrative powers, not judicial powers. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal's actions were not administrative decisions but rather judicial decisions, which are immune from the review provisions of the Act.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Court of Criminal Appeal had correctly exercised its jurisdiction. The Court of Criminal Appeal's quashing of the committal order was upheld, and O'Meara's challenge to its jurisdiction was rejected.

Orders