RODGERS -v- SIMPSON [2001] WASCA 223

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 223
Case No:	SJA:1050/2001	Heard:	30 JULY 2001
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	30/07/01
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Decision of Magistrate set aside Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions Bunbury to be heard according to law
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES RICHARD RODGERS AILSA EVELYN SIMPSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Private complaint Perjury Dismissal by Magistrate on ground that leave of the Supreme Court not obtained Requirement for leave under s 720 Criminal Code reserved for matters in which there has been a committal for trial
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 720 Justices Act 1902, s 45
Case References:	Gouldham v Sharrett [1966] WAR 129 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : RODGERS -v- SIMPSON [2001] WASCA 223 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 30 JULY 2001 DELIVERED : 30 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1050 of 2001 MATTER : Justices Act 1902

BETWEEN : JAMES RICHARD RODGERS

Appellant

AND

AILSA EVELYN SIMPSON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Private complaint - Perjury - Dismissal by Magistrate on ground that leave of the Supreme Court not obtained - Requirement for leave under s 720 Criminal Code reserved for matters in which there has been a committal for trial

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 720

Justices Act 1902, s 45

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Decision of Magistrate set aside
Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions Bunbury to be heard according to law

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M C Owens

Respondent : Mr S A Gabriel

Solicitors:

Appellant : Max Owens & Co

Respondent : Bunbury Community Legal Centre

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

Gouldham v Sharrett [1966] WAR 129

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The appellant instituted proceedings by complaint in the Court of Petty Sessions Bunbury against the respondent by way of two separate complaints. The first alleged that on 4 April 1998 at Bunbury the respondent unlawfully assaulted one Kathryn Marie Rodgers. The second alleged that on 25 February 1999 at Bunbury the respondent "in a judicial proceeding before Mr Lawrence SM knowingly gave false testimony".

2 The complaints were private complaints, and they came before the Court of Petty Sessions on 23 March 2001. The appellant appeared in person but the respondent was represented by counsel.

3 The first of the complaints was adjourned to 23 April 2001 with an order that the complainant serve within 14 days full particulars of the assault alleged. The second complaint was dismissed and the notation on the charge sheet is in the following terms: "Discharged. Not given leave. s 720".

4 The transcript of proceedings before the learned Magistrate reveals that when the complaint alleging perjury was mentioned counsel for the respondent advised the learned Magistrate that the complaint had not been brought properly because leave to bring the complaint was required under the provisions of…

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 Rodgers v Simpson

Details

AGLC: Rodgers v Simpson [2001] WASCA 223
Case: [2001] WASCA 223
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rodgers v Simpson involved an appeal by the respondent against a decision made by a magistrate dismissing his complaint against the appellant on the basis that leave from the Supreme Court had not been obtained. The respondent had lodged a private complaint against the appellant for perjury, an offence under section 719 of the Criminal Code. The magistrate dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the respondent had not obtained leave from the Supreme Court, as required by section 720 of the Criminal Code. The respondent appealed this decision, contending that leave was not necessary in this case.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether leave from the Supreme Court was a mandatory prerequisite for the respondent to lodge a private complaint of perjury. The respondent argued that the requirement for leave was only applicable when a committal for trial had occurred, which was not the case here. The court needed to interpret the scope and application of section 720 of the Criminal Code and determine whether it applied to all private complaints of perjury or only to those following a committal for trial.

The court held that the requirement for leave under section 720 of the Criminal Code was reserved for matters in which there had been a committal for trial. Given that the respondent's complaint did not follow a committal, the court concluded that the magistrate had erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of leave. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the magistrate's decision was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions in Bunbury to be heard according to law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Decision of Magistrate set aside

Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions Bunbury to be heard according to law

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.