Spagnolo v Flynn

Case [2014] WASC 88

SPAGNOLO -v- FLYNN [2014] WASC 88



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WASC 88
Case No:CIV:1642/201328 JANUARY 2014
Coram:EM HEENAN J18/03/14
19Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for review dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:FRANCESCO ANTONIO SPAGNOLO
LUCIA SPAGNOLO
MARTIN FLYNN
CITY OF GOSNELLS

Catchwords:
Review order
Magistrates Court Act 2004 s 36
Jurisdiction
Validity of prosecution notices
Defects
Correction of defects in prosecution notices
Discretion to grant review order

Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Local Government Act 1955 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)

Case References:
Craig v South Australia [1955] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dean v Legal Practice Board [2013] WASC 155
Palos Verdes Estates v Carbon (1991) 6 WAR 223
Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte [1938] HCA 7; (1938) 59 CLR 369
Perrinepod Pty Ltd v Georgiou Building Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 217
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 1; (2005) 64 NSWLR 10
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re David Scott Ellis; Ex parte Triple M Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [No 2] 2013 WASC 161
Re Geoffrey Dudley Lawrence; Ex parte Westpork Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 487
Russell v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 246; (2011) A Crim R 326
Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70; (1997) 71 FCR 386

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : SPAGNOLO -v- FLYNN [2014] WASC 88 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 28 JANUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 18 MARCH 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1642 of 2013 MATTER : An application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36 for a review order against MAGISTRATE MARTIN FLYNN, Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Armadale BETWEEN : FRANCESCO ANTONIO SPAGNOLO
    First Applicant

    LUCIA SPAGNOLO
    Second Applicant

    AND

    MARTIN FLYNN
    First Respondent

    CITY OF GOSNELLS
    Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Review order - Magistrates Court Act 2004 s 36 - Jurisdiction - Validity of prosecution notices - Defects - Correction of defects in prosecution notices - Discretion to grant review order

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)


Local Government Act 1955 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

Application for review dismissed


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    First Applicant : Mr P G McGowan
    Second Applicant : Mr P G McGowan
    First Respondent : No appearance
    Second Respondent : Ms L Black

Solicitors:

    First Applicant : Cornerstone Legal
    Second Applicant : Cornerstone Legal
    First Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
    Second Respondent : Lewis Blyth & Hooper



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

Craig v South Australia [1955] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dean v Legal Practice Board [2013] WASC 155
Palos Verdes Estates v Carbon (1991) 6 WAR 223
Parisienne Basket Shoes…

Continue reading Spagnolo v Flynn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spagnolo v Flynn [2014] WASC 88
Case
[2014] WASC 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spagnolo v Flynn, the applicant sought a review of an order made by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, challenging the validity of a prosecution notice issued against them. The applicant argued that the prosecution notice contained defects that rendered it invalid and sought a review under the Magistrates' Court Act 2004. The central legal issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a review order in light of the alleged defects in the prosecution notice and whether the defects were such that they could be corrected without invalidating the entire notice.

The court found that it did have jurisdiction to grant a review order under section 36 of the Magistrates' Court Act 2004. However, it determined that the defects in the prosecution notice were not of a kind that rendered the notice invalid. The court held that some defects could be corrected without invalidating the entire notice, but the applicant had not demonstrated that these corrections were necessary or that they could not be made without significant prejudice. The court emphasised that the purpose of the review was to ensure that the prosecution notice was valid and not to allow the applicant to challenge the merits of the charges. The court concluded that the application for a review order should be dismissed as the defects in the prosecution notice did not warrant such a remedy.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed

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.