Walsh v Doherty

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning a prosecution under the *Liquor Act 1886* (Qd.). The appellant, a hotel licensee, had been convicted of keeping her premises open for the sale of liquor on a Sunday. The central dispute revolved around whether the respondent, the licensing inspector, had complied with the notice requirements stipulated in section 25 of the *Liquor Act 1886*.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice of intended prosecution, as required by section 25 of the *Liquor Act 1886*, must be served *before* the institution of proceedings, which are deemed to commence upon the lodging of the complaint and the issuance of a summons. The Supreme Court of Queensland had held that the term "prosecution" in section 25 referred to the court proceedings rather than the initiation of legal action, and therefore, service of the notice after the complaint was laid was sufficient.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the language of section 25, which referred to an "intended prosecution" and a person "intended to be prosecuted," clearly indicated that the notice must precede the institution of proceedings. The Court held that a prosecution is instituted when the complaint is lodged and the summons issued. As the notice in this case was served after the complaint was laid, it did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the order of the Supreme Court be discharged, and an order to quash the conviction be made absolute, with costs awarded to the appellant.