ROBERTSON -v- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [2006] WASC 150

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 150
Case No:	SJA:1083/2005	Heard:	18 JULY 2006
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	28/07/06
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANDREW PETER ROBERTSON DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Catchwords:	Courts and judges Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Court No new principles
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : ROBERTSON -v- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [2006] WASC 150 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 18 JULY 2006 DELIVERED : 28 JULY 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1083 of 2005 BETWEEN : ANDREW PETER ROBERTSON

Applicant

AND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE W G TARR

File No : PE 24311 of 2005, PE 24312 of 2005, PE 24313 of 2005, PE 24314 of 2005, PE 24315 of 2005, PE 24316 of 2005, PE 24317 of 2005, PE 24318 of 2005, PE 24319 of 2005, PE 24320 of 2005, PE 24497 of 2005, PE 24498 of 2005, PE 24499 of 2005, PE 24500 of 2005, PE 24501 of 2005

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Court - No new principles

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: On 26 July 2005 the applicant was convicted of 15 charges of failing to lodge returns under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1999 (Cth). Prior to the hearing, the applicant presented an affidavit to the Magistrate and at the hearing questioned the jurisdiction of the Court. The Magistrate decided that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and proceeded with the hearing duly convicting the applicant.

2 On 15 August 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal notice with voluminous grounds of appeal. However, the essence of the applicant's case is that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

3 On 10 October 2005 I ordered that the applicant serve notices under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B and adjourned the matter sine die.

4 On 28 April 2006 the applicant lodged an affidavit of service of the s 78B notices.

5 I directed that the application for leave to appeal be relisted for hearing on 18 July 2006. The applicant filed an affidavit that morning. At the hearing the applicant made it clear that the affidavit contained his submissions and he did not wish to present further oral argument. I reserved my decision.

6 The applicant's submissions, principally based on arguments as to sovereignty, are misconceived. The Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) is a valid exercise of the power of the Western Australian Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State. The Magistrate was exercising Federal jurisdiction and the Judiciary Act s 39 is a valid law of the Australian Parliament vesting jurisdiction in the Magistrate. The Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the prosecution and the Magistrate was under a duty to do so. The applicant raises no reasonably arguable ground of appeal and leave to appeal is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia was called upon to determine whether the Magistrates' Court had jurisdiction to convict the applicant of charges under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1999 (Cth). The applicant, Andrew Peter Robertson, was convicted on 26 July 2005 on 15 charges related to failing to lodge returns. He subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the Magistrate had the authority to hear the case under the relevant federal legislation and whether the conviction was valid.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the prosecution against the applicant. The applicant's argument was primarily that the Magistrate's Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case due to perceived flaws in the federal legislative framework. The court needed to determine if the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) was a valid exercise of the Western Australian Parliament's legislative power, and whether the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) correctly vested jurisdiction in the Magistrate. The court also had to consider whether the Magistrate had a duty to proceed with the case, given that jurisdiction was properly vested.

In addressing the appeal, Justice McKechnie found the applicant's arguments to be misconceived. The court held that the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) was a valid exercise of legislative power by the Western Australian Parliament. Furthermore, the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) was deemed a valid law that vested jurisdiction in the Magistrate. The court concluded that the Magistrate was exercising federal jurisdiction and was under a duty to hear and determine the prosecution. Since the applicant did not present any reasonably arguable ground of appeal, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Consequently, the convictions by the Magistrate were upheld as valid.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the convictions made by the Magistrate. The court's decision was that the Magistrate's Court had the proper jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges against the applicant, and therefore the convictions were upheld.

Robertson v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

ROBERTSON -v- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [2006] WASC 150

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established