REYNOLDS -v- PANTEN & ANOR [1999] WASCA 89
| (1999) 23 WAR 215 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 89 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1192/1998 | 15 FEBRUARY & 28 APRIL 1999 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J | 2/07/99 | |
| 33 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KEVIN NOEL REYNOLDS BRETT RUSSELL PANTEN WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD |
Catchwords: | Appeal Magistrates Single judge appeal under Justices Act 1902 Decision by Magistrate not to express opinion under s 101D of the Act Whether appealable under s 184 of the Act Whether there was a "final determination of a proceeding" for the purposes of the definition of "decision" in s 4 of the Act Whether issue decided by grant of leave to appeal s 101D, s 184 and s 4 of Justices Act 1902 Courts and Judges Administration of justice Open system of justice Freedom to report committal proceedings Circumstances in which court may restrict freedom Words and phrases "decision" "proceeding" |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902, s 4, s 101D, s 184 |
Case References: | Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 Barnett v N2, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950461; 30 August 1995 Blake v Norris (1990) 20 NSWLR 300 Brennan v Williams (1951) 53 WALR 30 David Syme & Co Ltd v Hill, unreported; SCt of Victoria; No 4726 of 1995; 10 March 1995 Dowding v Barrett, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960352; 5 July 1996 Re Robins Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1 Harkness v Bell's Asbestos and Engineering Ltd [1967] 2 QB 729 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 Ibbs v Commissioner of Police, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930657; 29 November 1993 J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 10 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of NSW (1985) 5 NSWLR 465 John Fairfax Group v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 Kelson v Forward (1995) 60 FCR 39 Kimber v The Press Association [1893] 1 QB 65 Lewis v Levy (1858) El Bl and El 537 Mirror Newspapers Limited v Waller (1985) 1 NSWLR 1 Moularas v Nankervis [1985] VR 369 Pasdale Pty Ltd v Concrete Constructions (1985) 131 ALR 268 R v Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, Ex parte New Cross Building Society [1984] 1 QB 227 R v Craig (1989) 5 WAR 107 R v Gray (1865) 10 Cox C.C. 184 R v Horsham Justices; Ex parte Farquharson [1982] 1 QB 762 R v The Evening News; ex parte Hobbs [1925] 2 KB 158 Re Bromfield; Ex parte WA Newspapers Ltd (1991) 6 WAR 153 Re Vernazza [1960] 1 QB 197 Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495 TK v Australian Red Cross Society (1989) 1 WAR 335 WA Pines Pty Ltd v Hamilton [1980] WAR 29 A & Ors v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532 Ainsworth & Anor v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 106… |
Continue reading Reynolds v Panten
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Reynolds v Panten [1999] WASCA 89
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 89
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Reynolds v Panten involved an appeal by the plaintiff, Reynolds, against a decision made by a magistrate not to express an opinion under section 101D of the Justices Act 1902. The case was heard and determined by a single judge in the appellate court. The primary issue for the court was whether the decision of the magistrate not to express an opinion constituted a "final determination of a proceeding" for the purposes of the definition of "decision" in section 4 of the Act, and if such a decision was appealable under section 184 of the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the issue had already been resolved by the grant of leave to appeal.
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Justices Act 1902 and found that the magistrate's decision not to express an opinion did not constitute a "final determination of a proceeding". It held that for a decision to be appealable under section 184, it must be a final decision on the merits of the proceeding. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision not to express an opinion was not a final determination of the proceeding, and therefore, not appealable under section 184. The court further found that the issue of whether the magistrate's decision constituted a final determination of a proceeding was not decided by the grant of leave to appeal.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between a decision that concludes the merits of a proceeding and one that does not, in determining the appealability of a decision under the Justices Act 1902. The court also highlighted the open system of justice in Australia and the importance of freedom to report committal proceedings, while noting that there may be circumstances in which the court may restrict this freedom.
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Justices Act 1902 and found that the magistrate's decision not to express an opinion did not constitute a "final determination of a proceeding". It held that for a decision to be appealable under section 184, it must be a final decision on the merits of the proceeding. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision not to express an opinion was not a final determination of the proceeding, and therefore, not appealable under section 184. The court further found that the issue of whether the magistrate's decision constituted a final determination of a proceeding was not decided by the grant of leave to appeal.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between a decision that concludes the merits of a proceeding and one that does not, in determining the appealability of a decision under the Justices Act 1902. The court also highlighted the open system of justice in Australia and the importance of freedom to report committal proceedings, while noting that there may be circumstances in which the court may restrict this freedom.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.