THOMPSON -v- LANE [2005] WASC 281

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 281
Case No:	CIV:2194/2005	Heard:	2 DECEMBER 2005
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	19/12/05
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	WILLIAM ANTHONY JAMES THOMPSON MAGISTRATE BARBARA ANNE LANE
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Application for bail Court's power to prohibit publication of proceedings under s 20 Bail Act 1982 (WA) Meaning of "published by any means" in s 20(2)(a) Bail Act Application for leave to listen to and obtain transcript of electronic recording of bail proceedings under s 33 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) Whether access to electronic recording of proceedings by a party to a case constitutes publication Whether Magistrate erred in refusing leave to access electronic recording of proceedings subject to a prohibition order Magistrates Appeals from and control over Magistrates Application for a review order under s 36 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) Procedure on application
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 20 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 33, s 36
Case References:	Roget v Flavel (1987) 47 SASR 402 Titelius v Public Service Appeal Board & Ors [1999] WASCA 19; (1999) 21 WAR 201 Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2005) 214 ALR 56

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : THOMPSON -v- LANE [2005] WASC 281 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 2 DECEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 19 DECEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 2194 of 2005 MATTER : Application for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 against a Magistrate BETWEEN : WILLIAM ANTHONY JAMES THOMPSON

Plaintiff

AND

MAGISTRATE BARBARA ANNE LANE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Application for bail - Court's power to prohibit publication of proceedings under s 20 Bail Act 1982 (WA) - Meaning of "published by any means" in s 20(2)(a) Bail Act - Application for leave to listen to and obtain transcript of electronic recording of bail proceedings under s 33 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Whether access to electronic recording of proceedings by a party to a case constitutes publication - Whether Magistrate erred in refusing leave to access electronic recording of proceedings subject to a prohibition order

Magistrates - Appeals from and control over Magistrates - Application for a review order under s 36 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Procedure on application

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 20

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 33, s 36

Result:

Application allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G T W Tannin SC

Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : State Solicitor's Office

Defendant : No appearance

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

Roget v Flavel (1987) 47 SASR 402
Titelius v Public Service Appeal Board & Ors [1999] WASCA 19; (1999) 21 WAR 201

Case(s) also cited:

Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2005) 214 ALR 56

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 Thompson v Lane

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Lane [2005] WASC 281
Case: [2005] WASC 281
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thompson v Lane, the plaintiff, William Anthony James Thompson, sought a review order under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) against Magistrate Barbara Anne Lane. The plaintiff, a member of the Western Australian Police Service and the prosecutor in a case against an accused, had applied for leave to listen to and obtain a copy of the electronic recording of the bail hearing held on August 12, 2005, as provided under s 33(4) of the Magistrates Court Act. Magistrate Lane had denied the application for leave, citing an order made under s 20(2)(a) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) that no account of the proceedings on the application for bail be "published by any means."

The court found that Magistrate Lane's interpretation of "published by any means" was too broad and erred in refusing the plaintiff's application for leave. The court held that the term "published by any means" does not extend to communication between the parties to the bail application. The court further held that the provision in s 33(2) of the Magistrates Court Act, which states that the Act is subject to any other written law relating to the possession or publication of documents and other records, does not necessarily affirm that a party's entitlements under s 33 are not "publication" for the purpose of a provision like s 20(2) of the Bail Act.

The court granted the application for a review order, setting aside the decision of Magistrate Lane on September 29, 2005, and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to listen to and obtain a copy of all of the electronic recording of the proceedings in the bail hearing on August 12, 2005. The court declined to order a copy of the transcript, as it found that s 33(4) of the Magistrates Court Act does not allow for leave to obtain a copy of a transcript. The matter of whether a transcript would be ordered was left for the learned Magistrate to decide.

Orders