Reynolds v Stacy - [1957] HCA 9

REYNOLDS

STACY AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. Medical Practitioners-Drugs-Failure to keep register-Misdemeanour-Dis-

ciplinary tribunal-Inquiry-Jurisdiction-Medical Practitioners Act 1938- 1955 (N.S.W.), S. 27 1 (a). 1956,

Section 27 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938-1955 (N.S.W.) provides:- SYDNEY,

1A complaint or charge that any registered person-(a) has been convicted in New South Wales of a felony or misdemeanour, or elsewhere of an offence which, if committed in New South Wales would have been a felony or mis- MELBOURNE, may be preferred to the Board of Health, which shall cause the same to be investigated." Held, that by the word "misdemeanour" the sub-section refers only to indictable offences and does not include summary offences. Pickup v. Dental Board of the United Kingdom (1928) 2 K.B. 459, discussed. Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) : Ex parte Reynolds ; Re Stacy (1956) S.R. (N.S.W.) 372; 73 W.N. 445, reversed. APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Farrell John Reynolds a legally qualified medical practitioner registered under the Medical Practitioners Act 1938-1955 was on 25th June 1955 convicted at the Court of Petty Sessions, Kogarah of an offence under Pt. v. of the Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908 for that on 14th March 1955 he did not keep or cause to be kept a register of drugs as required by the regulations made pursuant to such Act. On 25th January 1956 one Walter James Madgwick, the chief food inspector of the Board of Health, preferred a complaint to the

96 CLR 455

Secretary of the Board of Health that by reason of the conviction the said Farrell John Reynolds had been convicted in New South Wales of a misdemeanour within the meaning of S. 27 1 (a) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938-1955 and thereby requested an investi- gation of such complaint by the Board of Health and, if warranted, a reference to the disciplinary tribunal constituted under S. 28 of such Act. After investigation the Board of Health referred the complaint to the disciplinary tribunal.

Upon the matter coming on to be heard before such tribunal, counsel for the said Farrell John Reynolds contended that the conviction by the court of petty sessions was not a conviction for a "misdemeanour" within the meaning of S. 27 (1) (a), which contention was overruled. The tribunal adjourned the further hearing of the complaint to enable the appellant to apply to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a writ of prohibition. A rule nisi for a prohibition was obtained against the prosecutor and members of the tribunal upon the grounds (a) that the said tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the said complaint and (b) that the said complaint disclosed on its face that the conviction in respect of which the complaint was made was not one for a mis- demeanour within the meaning of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938. The Full Court of the Supreme Court (Street C.J., Herron and McClemens JJ.) discharged…

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 Reynolds v Stacy

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Stacy [1957] HCA 9
Case: [1957] HCA 9
Decision Date: 18 February 1957

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Dr. Farrell John Reynolds, a registered medical practitioner, was convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions for failing to keep a register of drugs as required by regulations under the Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908 (N.S.W.). Subsequently, a complaint was preferred to the Board of Health, alleging that this conviction constituted a "misdemeanour" within the meaning of section 27(1)(a) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938-1955 (N.S.W.), thereby triggering an investigation by a disciplinary tribunal. The disciplinary tribunal overruled an objection that the conviction was not for a misdemeanour, leading Dr. Reynolds to seek a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Full Court of the Supreme Court discharged the rule nisi, holding that "misdemeanour" encompassed summary offences as well as indictable offences below the degree of felony. Dr. Reynolds appealed this decision to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of the term "misdemeanour" as used in section 27(1)(a) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938-1955. Specifically, the court had to determine whether this provision referred only to indictable offences, or if it extended to include summary offences, such as the one for which the appellant was convicted. This determination was crucial for establishing whether the disciplinary tribunal had jurisdiction to investigate the complaint based on the appellant's conviction.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the primary and technical meaning of "misdemeanour" at common law, and as reinforced by New South Wales statute law, refers to indictable offences that are not felonies. While acknowledging that a wider, secondary meaning sometimes includes all offences below the degree of felony, the court found no contextual basis within the Medical Practitioners Act to adopt this broader interpretation. The court noted that interpreting "misdemeanour" to include trivial summary offences would lead to an absurd outcome, obliging the disciplinary tribunal to censure practitioners for minor infractions unrelated to their professional conduct. Furthermore, the court observed that the Act itself draws a clear distinction between "offences" punishable summarily and "misdemeanours" designated as indictable offences, as evidenced by sections such as section 47 which explicitly creates misdemeanours punishable on indictment. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellant's summary conviction for failing to keep a register of drugs did not constitute a "misdemeanour" within the meaning of section 27(1)(a).

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court discharging the rule nisi. In its place, the High Court ordered that the rule nisi be made absolute, prohibiting the disciplinary tribunal from proceeding further with the complaint based on the summary conviction. The respondent, Walter James Madgwick, was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Orders