REYNOLDS -v- PANTEN [2000] WASCA 412

Reported Decision:	(2000) 23 WAR 238
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 412
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:90/1999	Heard:	6 & 7 APRIL 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J MURRAY J	Delivered:	20/12/00
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed Order nisi for a writ of certiorari made absolute
PDF Version

Parties:	KEVIN NOEL REYNOLDS BRETT RUSSELL PANTEN
Catchwords:	Prerogative writs Certiorari Mandamus Jurisdictional error Justices Jurisdiction Preliminary hearing Restriction on publication of evidence Whether jurisdiction extends beyond time of committal
Legislation:	Justices Act 1902, s 101D
Case References:	ABC v Parrish (1980) 29 ALR 228 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1991-1992) 175 CLR 564 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 Barnett v "N2", unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950461; 30 August 1995 Brennan v Williams (1951) 53 WALR 30 Brygel v Stewart-Thornton 1992] 2 VR 387 Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Committee (2000) 74 ALJR 1348 Craig v South Australia (1994-1995) 184 CLR 163 Dowding v Barrett, unreported SCt of WA; Library No 960352; 5 July 1996 Ex parte Cousens; Re Blacket (1946) 47 SR (NSW) 145 Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149 Ibbs v Commissioner of Police, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930657; 29 November 1993 Moles (1994) 77 A Crim R 360 Moularis v Nankervis [1985] VR 369 Penniel v Driffill [1980] WAR 30 Re Bromfield; Ex parte WA Newspapers Ltd (1991) 6 WAR 153 Re Robins SM; Ex parte WA Newspapers Ltd (1999) 20 WAR 511 WA Pines Pty Ltd v Hamilton [1980] WAR 29 Waterhouse v Gilmore (1988) 12 NSWLR 270 A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532 Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 Bailey v Hinch [1989] VR 78 Baldwin & Francis Ltd v Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] AC 663 Blake v Norris (1990) 20 NSWLR 300 Chambers v James Cook University (No 2) (1995) 61 IR 145 David Syme & Co v H, unreported; SCt of Vic (Beach J); 10 March 1995 Harkness v Bells Asbestos & Engineering Ltd [1967] 2 QB 729 Heather v Vita Pacific Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of Tas; No FCA 61 of 1996; 23 December 1996 J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 10 John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 Kelson v Forward (1995) 60 FCR 39 Kyle v Legal Practitioners' Complaints Committee [1999] WASCA 115 Parker v Taylor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 930581; 29 October 1993 Pasdale v Concrete Constructions (1995) 131 ALR 268 R v Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies; ex parte New Cross Building Society [1984] QB 227 R v Craig (1989) 5 WAR 107 R v London County Council [1915] 2 KB 466 R v Medcalf; ex parte Conacher [1978] WAR 53 R…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reynolds v Panten [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASCA 412
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Reynolds v Panten, the case came before the court concerning the jurisdiction of justices in relation to the issuance of prerogative writs such as certiorari and mandamus. The appellant, Reynolds, sought to challenge the jurisdiction of justices in matters relating to a restriction on the publication of evidence. The dispute arose following a preliminary hearing where certain evidence was restricted from publication. Reynolds argued that the justices' jurisdiction extended beyond the time of committal, which was when the restriction was imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the justices had the authority to issue prerogative writs to review decisions made after the time of committal, particularly in relation to restrictions on the publication of evidence. This involved determining the scope of the justices' jurisdiction and whether it could be exercised post-committal. The court had to consider the nature of the power of the justices and whether it included the ability to review actions taken after the committal proceedings.

The court found that the justices' jurisdiction was limited to the time of committal and did not extend to actions taken thereafter. The justices did not have the authority to review restrictions on the publication of evidence imposed after the committal. The court reasoned that the powers of the justices were confined to the time of committal and did not include the ability to review subsequent actions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order nisi for a writ of certiorari was made absolute.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Order nisi for a writ of certiorari made absolute

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.