Seeto v The Queen; Evans v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 227

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Seeto v R; Evans v R [2008] NSWCCA 227

HEARING DATE(S): 16 September 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 October 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Rothman J at 2; Price J at 12

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal to Janice Seeto be granted, but the appeal be dismissed. 2. Leave to appeal to Stephen Richard Evans be granted, but the appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Statutes - whether proceedings statute barred - Statutes - interpretation - legislative history of Police Act 1990 - rules of construction - mischief to be remedied - consideration of extrinsic materials - Second Reading Speeches

LEGISLATION CITED: Interpretation Act 1987 s 33, s 34
Justices Act 1902
Police Act 1990 s 200(2)(a), s 200(3), s 200(4)
Police Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2006
Police Service Act 1990 s 106(1),
Police Service (Complaints, Discipline and Appeals) Amendment Act 1993
Police Legislation Amendment Act 1996

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Attorney General of the The Commonwealth v Oates [1999] HCA 35 (1999) 198 CLR 162
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384
Colquhoun v Brooks (1888) 21 QBD 52
Harrison v Melhem [2008] NSWCA 67
Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214
Re Building Worker's Industrial Union of Australia Ex Parte Pillar [1991] HCA 50 (1992) 174 CLR 263
Re Coldham ex parte Bideson [No 1] (1989) 166 CLR 338
Houssein v Under Secretary of Industrial Relations & Technology (NSW) [1982] HCA 2 (1982) 148 CLR 88 at 94
Saraswati v R [1991] HCA 21 (1991) 172 CLR 1

TEXTS CITED: Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 24 April 1996 at 444
Hansard, Legislative Council, 14 November 2006 at 3720

PARTIES: Janice Seeto
Stephen Richard Evans
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/13913; 2007/14922

COUNSEL: C Davenport SC (Applicants)
D Arnott SC and L Wells (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor Legal Aid Commission (Applicants)
S Kavanagh Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0810
07/11/0721

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Puckeridge QC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 15 November 2007

2007/13913
2007/14922

GILES JA
ROTHMAN J
PRICE J
2 October 2008

Seeto v R

Evans v R

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Price J.

2 ROTHMAN J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Price J and the orders he proposes. I agree with the orders proposed by Price J and with his reasons. I wish to add the following comments.

3 It is unnecessary to recite the facts. The outcome of the appeal against conviction depends upon the correct statutory construction of legislation promulgated in 1996 that amended the pre-existing legislation. I shall refer to the pre-existing legislation (the Police Act 1990) as the 1990 Act; and the legislation promulgated in 1996 as the 1996 Amendment or the legislation as the 1996 Act.

4 The appellants submit that the ordinary and grammatical meaning of s 200(3) of the 1996 Act is to confine…

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 Seeto v The Queen; Evans v The Queen 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: [2008] NSWCCA 227
Decision Date: 2 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Seeto and Evans, appealed their convictions and sentences against the Crown. The case concerned whether the proceedings against them were statute barred under the Police Act 1990. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of the Police Act 1990, specifically the meaning of the phrase "within six months" in the context of the limitations period for criminal proceedings. The court had to decide whether the phrase was a condition, exception, or limitation on the operation of the statute, and whether it was permissible to consider extrinsic materials, such as Second Reading Speeches, in the process of statutory interpretation.

The court examined the legislative history of the Police Act 1990, including the Second Reading Speeches, to understand the mischief the Act intended to remedy. The court held that the phrase "within six months" was a condition or exception to the operation of the statute, rather than a limitation on its effect. The court also concluded that it was permissible to consider extrinsic materials to assist in the interpretation of the statute. The court found that the proceedings against Seeto and Evans were not statute barred, as they were commenced within the required time period. The convictions and sentences of the appellants were upheld.

The High Court dismissed the appeals of Seeto and Evans. The court confirmed that the interpretation of the Police Act 1990 should be guided by the legislative history, including the Second Reading Speeches, and that the phrase "within six months" was a condition or exception to the operation of the statute. The court held that it was permissible to consider extrinsic materials in the process of statutory interpretation. The court further found that the proceedings against the appellants were not statute barred, as they were initiated within the required time period. The convictions and sentences of Seeto and Evans were therefore upheld.

Orders