STARLING -v- OSTROWSKI [2001] WASCA 74
| (2001) 24 WAR 61 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 74 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1188/1999 | 6 NOVEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J IPP J OWEN J | 15/03/01 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Leave to amend complaint refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRUCE GERALD STARLING GEORGE PETER OSTROWSKI |
Catchwords: | Primary industry Fish and shellfish Conservation provisions Complaint of pulling rock lobster pots which were not attached to required surface floats marked in accordance with regulations Regulation prohibiting use of a rock lobster pot to fish for rock lobster unless attached to properly marked surface float Complaint not disclosing an offence according to law Whether Magistrate erred in refusing amendment |
Legislation: | Fish Resources Management Act 1984, definition of "fishing" s 4(1), s 201 Interpretation Act 1984, s 9, s 44(1) Justices Act 1902, s 45, S 46 Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995, reg 32(1) |
Case References: | Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Sunland Enterprises Pty Ltd (1987) 36 A Crim R 418 Broome v Chenoweth (1946) 73 CLR 583 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Dawson (1985) 62 LGRA 53 Fred Wakefield Pty Ltd v Dowd (1979) 20 SASR 328 Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 36 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kalgoorlie Regional Traffic Council v Fostinelli [1974] WAR 3 Lineham v Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) (1982) 66 FLR 90 Mitchell v Myers (1955) 57 WALR 49 Videon v Barry Burroughs Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 425 Bateman v McCutcheon, unreported; SCt of WA (Smith J); Library No 6828; 13 August 1987 Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569 Chew v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 626 Cutter v The Queen (1997) 71 ALJR 638 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 Henry Walker Contracting Pty Ltd v Farnworth [2000] WASCA 253 Higgon v O'Dea [1952] WAR 140 Lloyd v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 130 Meiklejohn v Central Norseman Gold Corporation Ltd (1996) 89 A Crim R 311 Meiklejohn v Norseman Gold Corporation Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 298 R v Adams (1935) 53 CLR 563 Reedy v O'Sullivan [1953] SASR 114 Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529 W Thomas & Co (WA) Ltd v Martin [1967] WAR 68 Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : STARLING -v- OSTROWSKI [2001] WASCA 74 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- IPP J
OWEN J
- Appellant
AND
GEORGE PETER OSTROWSKI
Respondent
Catchwords:
Primary industry - Fish and shellfish - Conservation provisions - Complaint of pulling rock lobster pots which were not attached to required surface floats marked in accordance with regulations - Regulation prohibiting use of a rock lobster pot to…
Continue reading Starling v Ostrowski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Starling v Ostrowski [2001] WASCA 74
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 74
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Starling v Ostrowski involved a complaint by the appellant against the respondent regarding the pulling of rock lobster pots that were not attached to required surface floats marked in accordance with regulations. The respondent was accused of contravening specific conservation provisions that prohibit the use of a rock lobster pot unless it is attached to a properly marked surface float. The case was brought before the court to determine whether the Magistrate erred in refusing the appellant's request to amend the complaint.
The primary legal issue was whether the Magistrate's refusal to allow the amendment of the complaint was correct. The appellant argued that the Magistrate should have permitted an amendment to the complaint to disclose an offence according to law. The respondent contended that the complaint did not sufficiently allege an offence under the relevant statutory provisions and thus should not be amended.
The court examined the statutory provisions and the nature of the complaint. It determined that the complaint did not adequately allege an offence under the relevant legislation, as it failed to specify the statutory provision allegedly contravened by the respondent's actions. The court held that the Magistrate was correct in refusing the amendment, as the complaint did not meet the legal requirements to disclose an offence according to law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the leave to amend the complaint was refused.
The primary legal issue was whether the Magistrate's refusal to allow the amendment of the complaint was correct. The appellant argued that the Magistrate should have permitted an amendment to the complaint to disclose an offence according to law. The respondent contended that the complaint did not sufficiently allege an offence under the relevant statutory provisions and thus should not be amended.
The court examined the statutory provisions and the nature of the complaint. It determined that the complaint did not adequately allege an offence under the relevant legislation, as it failed to specify the statutory provision allegedly contravened by the respondent's actions. The court held that the Magistrate was correct in refusing the amendment, as the complaint did not meet the legal requirements to disclose an offence according to law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the leave to amend the complaint was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Leave to amend complaint refused
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.