Procedure - Person under disability - Limited guardianship order - Guardian (Public Advocate) not authorised to act as next friend in criminal appeal commenced by appellant
Procedure - Person under disability - Plenary administration order - Whether plenary administrator (Public Trustee) authorised to bring or continue criminal appeal in name of appellant
Procedure - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 70 r 3(6) read with O 70 r 2(1)(a) - Whether mandatory in a criminal appeal Courts and judges - s 40(1)(l) of Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) - Scope of power Courts and judges - Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 5 and s 16 - Inherent jurisdiction - Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 16(1)(d) and s 23 - Parens patriae jurisdiction - Whether court empowered to appoint next friend in a criminal appeal
Courts and judges - Person under disability - Appellant not represented by next friend - Need for appointment of next friend - Whether Public Trustee to be appointed - Turns own facts
[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 TJD v BRJ
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
TJD v BRJ [2025] WASC 433
Case
[2025] WASC 433
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved an appeal by an appellant, TJD, who was under a disability. The appellant was represented by the Public Advocate as his limited guardian. The appeal was against a decision of a lower court. The central issue before the court was whether the Public Advocate, as the limited guardian, was authorised to act as the next friend in the criminal appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the Public Trustee, as the plenary administrator, was authorised to bring or continue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. These questions involved the interpretation of various sections of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), and the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
The court carefully examined the statutory framework governing the representation of persons under disability in criminal appeals. It considered the scope of the powers granted to the Public Advocate and the Public Trustee under the relevant legislation. The court found that the Public Advocate, as the limited guardian, was not authorised to act as the next friend in the criminal appeal. This was because the limited guardianship order did not confer the necessary authority. Furthermore, the court held that the Public Trustee, as the plenary administrator, was also not authorised to bring or continue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. This was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the rules, which did not empower the Public Trustee to act as the next friend in such circumstances. The court also considered the inherent jurisdiction and parens patriae jurisdiction of the court but concluded that these did not provide the necessary authority in this instance.
In light of these findings, the court held that it was necessary to appoint a next friend for the appellant. The court determined that the Public Trustee should be appointed as the next friend in this case, given the specific facts and circumstances of the appeal. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory provisions, the rules, and the need to ensure that the appellant's interests were properly represented in the criminal appeal. The final orders of the court included the appointment of the Public Trustee as the next friend for the appellant and directions for the continuation of the appeal process.