Sharp v Killeen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr. Sharp, sought leave to appeal a decision of O'Bryan J. of the Supreme Court of Victoria, who had discharged an order nisi to review a magistrate's dismissal of an information. The information had been brought by the respondent, Killeen, against Mr. Sharp under section 11(1) of the Vagrancy Act 1966 (Vic).

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 11(1) of the Vagrancy Act 1966 (Vic), specifically the effect of certain words in parenthesis within the provision. The applicant argued that these words were not merely words of exemption, as found by O'Bryan J., but were words of definition that should be considered when determining the meaning of "brothel" for the purposes of the section. This raised questions of general importance regarding the onus of proof and the proper interpretation of the statutory provision, which had not previously been the subject of reported decisions in a superior court.

The applicant contended that O'Bryan J.'s finding that the words in parenthesis were solely words of exemption was open to doubt. He submitted that these words should be taken into account when defining "brothel" and that the offence under the section might include elements set out in those parenthetical words. The applicant further highlighted the introduction of section 12A(2) of the Vagrancy Act 1966 (Vic) concurrently with the amended section 11(1), which provided a definition of premises to be treated as a brothel if resorted to by people of both sexes or of either sex for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. The applicant argued that this legislative context supported his submission that the words in parenthesis were integral to the definition of the offence.