Ryan v Doudle; Ryan v Clough; Ryan v Ward; Ryan v RSPCA - [2019] SASC 155

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
RYAN v DOUDLE; RYAN v CLOUGH; RYAN v WARD; RYAN v RSPCA
[2019] SASC 155
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Doyle
30 August 2019
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS
An appeal from a Magistrate’s dismissal of private prosecutions brought by the appellant against each of the four respondents.
Consideration of principles relevant to the stay or dismissal of proceedings on the basis that they constitute an abuse of process.
Held (per Doyle J):
1. The Magistrate was correct to conclude that the proceedings were an abuse of process.
2. The appeal is allowed, but only for the limited purpose of substituting orders that the proceedings be stayed rather than dismissed.
Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ; Magistrates Court Rules 1992 (SA) r 19; Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 111, referred to.
Kowalski v Cole [2012] SASC 30; Gray v Police (2003) 85 SASR 1; Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1; Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; Rona v District Court (SA) (1995) 63 SASR 223; Kowalski v Bourne [2012] SASC 6, considered.

RYAN v DOUDLE; RYAN v CLOUGH; RYAN v WARD; RYAN v RSPCA
[2019] SASC 155
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

1 DOYLE J: This is an appeal from a Magistrate’s dismissal of private prosecutions brought by the appellant against each of the four respondents. The Magistrate’s reason for dismissing the proceedings was essentially that they were defective and deficient to an extent that rendered them an abuse of process.
2 For the reasons which follow, I agree with his Honour’s reasons and conclusion, save that in my view the appropriate order was that the proceedings be stayed rather than dismissed. I intend to allow the appeal, but only for the limited purpose of varying the orders made in the way indicated.
The background
3 In April 2017, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SA) Inc (the RSPCA) received a complaint about the condition of animals at the property of the appellant (Ms Ryan).
4 On 28 April 2017, a Magistrate issued a warrant authorising inspector Cheryl Doudle and her delegates to use, if necessary, reasonable force to enter Ms Ryan’s property and exercise powers conferred by the Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) (the AWA).
5 On 3 May 2017, the warrant was executed on Ms Ryan’s property. The search revealed suspected breaches of the AWA. A number of animals were seized during the search and one animal was euthanised.
6 On 13 September 2017, Ms Ryan filed a civil claim in detinue in the Magistrates Court naming the RSPCA as the defendant and seeking, inter alia, $97,000 by way of damages.
7 On 29 September 2017, the RSPCA filed an Information…

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 Ryan v Doudle; Ryan v Clough; Ryan v Ward; Ryan v RSPCA 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: [2019] SASC 155
Decision Date: 30 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ryan v Doudle; Ryan v Clough; Ryan v Ward; Ryan v RSPCA, the appellant, Ms Ryan, sought to appeal against the decision of a Magistrate who had dismissed her private prosecutions against various respondents. The central dispute arose from the actions of the respondents, including Ms Doudle, Dr Ward, Dr Clough, and the RSPCA, who had executed a warrant and seized animals from Ms Ryan's property under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA). Ms Ryan subsequently filed various proceedings, including civil claims and private prosecutions, against the respondents, alleging abuse of process.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the Magistrate's decision to dismiss the proceedings as an abuse of process was correct and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy was a dismissal or a stay of the proceedings. The court had to consider whether the private prosecutions brought by Ms Ryan were legitimate and whether they were being pursued for ulterior or improper purposes, or if they were frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The court also needed to assess if Ms Ryan's inability to competently prosecute the proceedings due to the defects in the Informations warranted a dismissal or a stay.

The court concluded that the Magistrate was correct in finding that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The court identified that Ms Ryan's private prosecutions were not only lacking in merit but also appeared to be motivated by personal animosity and a lack of understanding of the law. The oppressive nature of the proceedings, combined with the lack of any real prospect of success, justified the conclusion of abuse of process. While there may be a power to dismiss proceedings that are an abuse of process, the court determined that the appropriate remedy in these circumstances was a stay of the proceedings. This was due to Ms Ryan's inability to address the defects in the Informations and to competently prosecute the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for the limited purpose of substituting orders that the proceedings be stayed rather than dismissed. The court recognised that staying the proceedings was the appropriate order to uphold the due administration of justice and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Magistrate was correct to conclude that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

2. The appeal is allowed, but only for the limited purpose of substituting orders that the proceedings be stayed rather than dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

2 For the reasons which follow, I agree with his Honour’s reasons and conclusion, save that in my view the appropriate order was that the proceedings be stayed rather than dismissed. I intend to allow the appeal, but only for the limited purpose of varying the orders made in the way indicated.The background 3 In April 2017, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SA) Inc (the RSPCA) received a complaint about the condition of animals at the property of the appellant (Ms Ryan). 4 On 28 April 2017, a Magistrate issued a warrant authorising inspector Cheryl Doudle and her delegates to use, if necessary, reasonable force to enter Ms Ryan’s property and exercise powers conferred by the Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) (the AWA). 5 On 3 May 2017, the warrant was executed on Ms Ryan’s property. The search revealed suspected breaches of the AWA. A number of animals were seized during the search and one animal was euthanised. 6 On 13 September 2017, Ms Ryan filed a civil claim in detinue in the Magistrates Court naming the RSPCA as the defendant and seeking, inter alia, $97,000 by way of damages. 7 On 29 September 2017, the RSPCA filed an Information in the Magistrates Court naming Ms Ryan as the defendant and alleging 29 breaches of the AWA. 8 Also on 29 September 2017, Ms Ryan filed an interlocutory application in her detinue proceedings seeking orders that the RSPCA return the seized animals to her. In early 2018, this application and a subsequent appeal by Ms Ryan were dismissed. On 3 August 2018, Ms Ryan’s detinue proceedings were dismissed. 9 During September and October 2018, Ms Ryan commenced private prosecutions against each of the four respondents, namely Ms Doudle (the lead investigator in the RSPCA’s investigation of Ms Ryan and the inspector who executed the warrant to search Ms Ryan’s property and seize her animals), Dr Ward (a veterinarian who provided an expert report on the conditions at Ms Ryan’s property at the time the animals were seized), Dr Clough (a veterinarian who provided an expert report on the condition of Ms Ryan’s animals following their seizure), and the RSPCA. 10 The Information filed in the proceedings against Ms Doudle charged her with 42 offences under the under the AWA and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA). The Information listed each of the charged offences as summary offences whereas the majority were in fact indictable. The Information sought orders including for a term of imprisonment and a life-time prohibition against “owning, coming close to or dealing with any type of animals.” 11 The Informations filed in the proceedings against Dr Ward and Dr Clough charged each of them with four offences under the CLCA. Again, while the offences were all listed as summary offences, they included indictable offences. The Informations sought various orders, including orders prohibiting the defendants from “testifying orally or written in judicial proceedings.” 12 The Information filed in the proceedings against the RSPCA charged it with the same 42 offences as Ms Doudle, and again listed all of the offences as summary offences when the majority were indictable. The Information sought orders including a “heavy monetary penalty in favour to the ‘Victims of crime’”.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

41 Having agreed with the Magistrate’s conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process, the only issue that remains is whether the proceedings should have been stayed or dismissed. While there may well be a power to dismiss proceedings that are an abuse of process, in the ordinary course the appropriate order will be a stay. In circumstances such as the present, where the gravamen of the abuse lies in the inability of Ms Ryan to address the defects in the Informations and to otherwise competently prosecute the proceedings, I consider that a stay was the appropriate order.Conclusion 42 For the reasons set out, I uphold the Magistrate’s conclusion that the proceedings brought by Ms Ryan were an abuse of process. I would, however, allow the appeals for the limited purpose of substituting orders that the proceedings be stayed rather than dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

27 The grounds of appeal are difficult to understand, and Ms Ryan’s submissions on appeal did little to assist. However, it is plain that Ms Ryan wishes to contest the orders made, and contends that she ought to have been permitted to continue to pursue her private prosecutions of the respondents, or at least have had further opportunity to rectify the defects and deficiencies relied upon by the Magistrate in dismissing the proceedings. I have thus approached the appeal on the basis that Ms Ryan contends that there was no proper basis for the Magistrate to conclude that the proceedings involved an abuse of process, or that the proceedings should otherwise be dismissed.Consideration 28 The Magistrate did not identify in his reasons the source of the power to dismiss that he was exercising. 29 Counsel for the respondents relied in part upon the provision in s 181(2)(b) of the CPA that, in the case of an Information that is defective in substance or in form, a court may “dismiss an information if the defect cannot appropriately be cured by amendment.” By way of illustration of the exercise of this power, a Magistrate’s invocation of this power to dismiss an Information was upheld in Kowalski v Cole in circumstances where the Information included charges that were duplicitous and alleged offences not known to the law at the time of the relevant conduct. 30 Counsel for the respondents also relied upon the Magistrates Court’s inherent or implied power to prevent an abuse of its processes. Counsel relied upon Gray v Police as both confirming the existence of this power, and illustrating its breadth. In that case, in confirming that the Magistrates Court had power to stay criminal proceedings, permanently if necessary, in order to prevent an abuse of its processes, Gray J relied upon authorities including Grassby v The Queen, Jago v District Court (NSW) and Rona v District Court (SA). As those authorities explain, abuse in this context includes proceedings issued or pursued for some ulterior or improper purpose, proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, and proceedings which will otherwise result in an unfair trial. The rationale for the power to stay in these circumstances lies in the public interest in the due administration of justice, and the maintenance of public confidence in the same. It is recognised that these objectives will be undermined if the processes of the criminal law are permitted to be used in a manner that is productive of oppression or injustice. 31 In Kowlaski v Bourne, Kourakis J (as his Honour then was) held that a private prosecution brought in the Magistrates Court was an abuse of process. In addition to the lack of merit in the proceedings, and the apparent personal animosity motivating the informant, his Honour emphasised the oppressive nature of the proceedings given the informant’s lack of understanding of the law and consequential difficulty in competently prosecuting the matter to a fair trial. As his Honour explained:Mr Kowalski is a lay litigant with a very limited understanding of the law. It appears from the way in which the information has been drawn and from the accompanying material, that if the information were to proceed it would take a tortuous path with much of the Magistrates Court’s time and resources occupied and devoted to matters which were simply irrelevant. That too, coupled with the lack of any real prospect of success is reason to stay the information.