Spanswick v The Honourable Robert John Carr, MP - [2003] NSWSC 393

CITATION: Spanswick v The Honourable Robert John Carr, MP [2003] NSWSC 393

HEARING DATE(S): 01/05/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Shaw J

DECISION: Referred to Duty Judge List on Monday 19 May 2003

CATCHWORDS: Pleadings - whether summons should be stayed or dismissed - declaratory orders

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);
Customs Act 1901 (Cth);
Drug Summit Legisative Response Act 1999 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth);

CASES CITED: Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493;
Eastern Petroleum Australia Ltd v Horseshoe Lights Gold Pty Ltd (1985) 9 ACLR 980;
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125;
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435;
Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia Ltd v Hunt (1982) 44 ALR 365;
Imperial Tobacco Limited v Attorney General [1981] AC 718;
Kings Cross Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Inc v Uniting Church of Australia Property Trust (NSW) and Ors (2001) 160 FLR 300;
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Limited (1981) 149 CLR 27 R v Courtney-Smith (1990) 48 A Crim R 49;
R v Ludeke and Ors; Ex parte The Customs Officers' Association of Australia Fourth Division (1985) 155 CLR 513;
Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Limited (1991) 173 CLR 78;
Stockport District Waterworks Co v The Mayor and Corporation of Manchester (1863) 7 LT 545;

PARTIES :
Robert G Spanswick - Plaintiff
The Honourable Robert John Carr, MP - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 10783/03

COUNSEL:
R Spanswick - Plaintiff
P Strickland - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitors - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Shaw J

13 May 2003
10783 of 2003

Robert G Spanswick (Plaintiff)

v
The Honourable Robert John Carr, MP (Defendant)
JUDGMENT

1 Shaw J: By notice of motion filed on 11 April 2003, the defendant, the Premier of the State of New South Wales, seeks orders to dismiss or stay the summons of the plaintiff, Mr Spanswick, filed on 31 March 2003.

2 Mr Spanswick appeared in person to oppose the motion and support his right to have the summons proceed to a hearing.

The summons

3 The summons claims the following relief:

1. A declaration that the defendant is guilty of acting with a seditious intent and being knowingly concerned in the undertaking of a seditious enterprise.

2. A declaration that the defendant is guilty of acting improperly and in ultra vires [sic] having created the Drug Summit Legislative Response Bill 1999 and passing it into law causing state officers and others to break federal legislative arrangements.

3. A declaration that the defendant is guilty of conspiring with the Governor of New South Wales, the Honourable Gordon J. Samuels, to carry out a seditious enterprise.

Customs Act

5. Orders that the defendant be punished for…

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 Spanswick v The Honourable Robert John Carr, MP 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: [2003] NSWSC 393
Decision Date: 13 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spanswick v The Honourable Robert John Carr, MP involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Spanswick, and the defendant, Carr, a member of the New South Wales Parliament. Spanswick sought declaratory orders and relief in relation to alleged defamation made by Carr in parliamentary proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the summons should be stayed or dismissed, and whether the court should grant declaratory orders to the plaintiff. The court had to consider the principles of parliamentary privilege and the extent to which those principles protect statements made in parliamentary proceedings from legal action. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were justiciable, that is, whether they were suitable for judicial resolution.

The Supreme Court held that the summons should be dismissed, and declaratory orders should not be granted to the plaintiff. The court found that the statements made by Carr in parliamentary proceedings were protected by parliamentary privilege, and therefore could not be the subject of legal action. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not justiciable, as they involved questions of parliamentary privilege and procedure which were outside the scope of the court's jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were an attempt to challenge the validity of parliamentary proceedings, which was not permissible.

The court's final orders were that the summons be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not justiciable, and that the statements made by Carr in parliamentary proceedings were protected by parliamentary privilege. The court declined to grant any declaratory orders to the plaintiff, and dismissed the case with costs.

Orders