Thompson v Lane

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.