Thompson v DUFFIN

[2009] SASC 32

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)

THOMPSON v DUFFIN

[2009] SASC 32

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Kourakis)

20 February 2009

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Appeal - application for permission to appeal to Full Court - permission granted - appeal raised issues of law and mixed law and fact of sufficient importance to warrant grant of permission.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 120(1)(a) and s 120(1)(c), referred to.

THOMPSON v DUFFIN
[2009] SASC 32

Full Court        Gray, Sulan and Kourakis JJ

THE COURT

1. This is an application for permission to appeal from the decision of a Judge of this Court allowing an appeal from a Magistrate.  The Court has considered the application in private.

2. Jeffrey Ian Thompson, the defendant, the appellant in the Court below and the applicant seeking permission to appeal was charged in the Adelaide Magistrates Court with 95 counts of dishonesty. Sixty-nine of those counts alleged breaches of section 120(1)(c) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA). The other 26 counts alleged breaches of section 120(1)(a) of the Act. Following a trial before a Magistrate the applicant was convicted of 16 counts of offending contrary to section 120(1)(a) of the Act. The other charges were dismissed.

3. On appeal the Judge of this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the whole of the Magistrate’s orders.  This included the counts that had been dismissed by the Magistrate.  The learned Judge then remitted the complaint for rehearing and determination before a Magistrate.  The Judge awarded costs in a lump sum in favour of the present applicant.  The proposed grounds for appeal challenge the decision of the Judge to set aside the whole of the Magistrate’s orders and to remit the whole of the complaint for rehearing.  It is further complained that the Judge erred in rulings with respect to submissions made with respect to duplicity and latent ambiguity.  The order for costs made by the Judge is also the subject of complaint.

4. The Court has had the opportunity to review the reasons of the Judge, the notice of appeal, the supplementary notice of appeal and the outlines of argument filed in support of the application for permission.

5. The Court is of the view that the application for permission to appeal should be granted.  The appeal raises issues of law and mixed law and fact of sufficient importance to warrant a grant of permission.  Accordingly, the Court grants permission to appeal as sought.