SWANN -v- R [1999] WASCA 106

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 106
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:187/1998	Heard:	1 JUNE 1999
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J IPP J	Delivered:	30/07/99
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal grantedAppeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	GEOFFREY MAXWELL SWANN THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction False declarations Statutory declaration Application for vehicle licence headed "Statutory Declaration Evidence Act 1906" Omission of the words "do solemnly and sincerely declare" All other requirements of form satisfied Omission did not materially affect substance and was not likely to mislead
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 170 Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106 Declarations and Attestations Act 1913 (WA), s 2 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 111(5) Road Traffic (Licensing) Regulations, reg 5 Interpretation Act 1984, s 74
Case References:	Regina v Mungovan (1869) 6 WW and A'B 157 Rex v Haynes [1916] NZLR 407 Rex v Shing Duck (1901) 7 Argus LR 96 Rex v Smith (1909) 29 NZLR 244 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SWANN -v- R [1999] WASCA 106 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

PIDGEON J

IPP J

HEARD : 1 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 30 JULY 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 187 of 1998 BETWEEN : GEOFFREY MAXWELL SWANN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - False declarations - Statutory declaration - Application for vehicle licence headed "Statutory Declaration Evidence Act 1906" - Omission of the words "do solemnly and sincerely declare" - All other requirements of form satisfied - Omission did not materially affect substance and was not likely to mislead

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 170

Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106
Declarations and Attestations Act 1913 (WA), s 2
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 111(5)
Road Traffic (Licensing) Regulations, reg 5
Interpretation Act 1984, s 74

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr B S Hanbury

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms M A Longdon

Solicitors:

Appellant : Beau Hanbury

Respondent : Acting State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Regina v Mungovan (1869) 6 WW and A'B 157
Rex v Haynes [1916] NZLR 407
Rex v Shing Duck (1901) 7 Argus LR 96
Rex v Smith (1909) 29 NZLR 244

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: This was an application for leave to appeal against conviction. On 18 November 1998 the appellant was convicted on a count of making a false declaration contrary to s 170 of the Criminal Code which provides that:

"Any person who, on any occasion on which he is permitted or required by law to make a statement or declaration before any person authorized by law to permit it to be made before him, makes a statement or declaration before that person…

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.

Continue reading Swann v R

Details

AGLC: Swann v R [1999] WASCA 106
Case: [1999] WASCA 106
Decision Date: 30 JULY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Swann v R was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the appellant contested his conviction for making false declarations in a statutory declaration. The appellant had signed an application for a vehicle licence, which was headed "Statutory Declaration Evidence Act 1906", but omitted the words "do solemnly and sincerely declare". Despite this omission, all other requirements of the form were satisfied. The central issue before the court was whether the absence of these words rendered the statutory declaration invalid and whether this omission had a material effect on the substance of the declaration or was likely to mislead.

The court considered the statutory framework governing statutory declarations under the Statutory Declarations Act and the common law principles applicable to such declarations. It examined whether the omission of the specified words was a formal defect that rendered the declaration invalid or whether the declaration remained valid despite the omission, given that all other requirements were met and the omission did not affect the substance or likelihood of misleading. The court ultimately determined that the omission of the words "do solemnly and sincerely declare" did not render the statutory declaration invalid, as the omission did not materially affect the substance of the declaration and was not likely to mislead. The court held that the declaration was still valid, and therefore, the conviction should stand.

The High Court granted the appellant leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court held that the omission of the specified words did not invalidate the statutory declaration and that the conviction was correctly upheld. The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal, thereby affirming the conviction of the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal grantedAppeal 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.