Legal Research
Cases
Williamson v Johnson

Williamson v Johnson

Case [2016] WASC 232 1 August 2016

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WILLIAMSON -v- JOHNSON [2016] WASC 232

CORAM: CORBOY J

HEARD: 7 APRIL 2016

DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2016

FILE NO/S: SJA 1088 of 2015

BETWEEN: HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON
Appellant
AND
DAVID JOHNSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE M RIDLEY
File No  :PE 112691 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Whether statutory scheme conferring power on a registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to make a sequestration order constitutionally valid - Section 149 of the Criminal Code (Cth)

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 52
Criminal Code (Cth), s 149.1
Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth), r 2.02
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s 102

Result:

Application for leave refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr J Johnston

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84
Ledger Acquisitions Australia MB Pty Ltd v Kiefer [2014] FCCA 2216
O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96
Pattison v Hadjimouratis [2006] FCAFC 153; (2006) 155 FCR 226
R v Davison [1954] HCA 46; (1954) 90 CLR 353
Re Bryant; Ex parte Guarino [2001] HCA 5; (2001) 178 ALR 57
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231
Simandl v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 451; (2008) 5 ABC(NS) 763
The Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund [1982] HCA 13; (1982) 150 CLR 49

CORBOY J:

The application and the result

The appellant applies for leave to appeal against conviction for an offence against s 149.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth): that on 30 June 2014, at Perth, he obstructed, hindered or intimidated Martin Tshin Fong Jan, a public officer who was performing a function of his office as a registrar for the Federal Court.
The appellant's appeal notice proposed five grounds of appeal:
1.The Magistrate erred in law by failing to recognise that District Registrar Jan was lawfully prohibited from exercising the judicial powers of the Commonwealth by judicially dealing with s 51(xvii) of the Constitution, to the detriment of the Appellant.
2.The Magistrate erred in law by failing to recognise and implement the Commonwealth Constitution 1901, the source of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, by misconstruing sub-ordinate legislation as authorisation for District Registrar Jan to exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth to the detriment of the Appellant.
3.The Magistrate erred in law as the Appellant used the correct legislation to make the arrest of District Registrar Jan as enabled through further reciprocal Commonwealth and State legislation.
4.The Magistrate erred in law and fact as the actions of the Appellant to 'hinder', 'obstruct' or 'intimidate' District Registrar Jan…

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 Williamson v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Williamson v Johnson [2016] WASC 232
Case: [2016] WASC 232
Decision Date: 1 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williamson v Johnson involved an appeal against a conviction by the appellant, Williamson, who challenged the constitutionality of the statutory scheme that conferred upon a registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia the power to make a sequestration order. The appellant's challenge was grounded in the assertion that this legislative framework violated the separation of judicial powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution. The dispute ultimately reached the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the statutory scheme, specifically section 149 of the Criminal Code, was constitutionally valid. This section enabled a registrar to make a sequestration order, a matter traditionally within the exclusive jurisdiction of a judicial officer. The appellant argued that this legislative delegation of judicial power to a non-judicial officer contravened the doctrine of separation of powers. The respondent, Johnson, defended the constitutionality of the scheme, arguing that it was a permissible exercise of the legislative power under the Constitution.

The Court considered the historical context of the separation of powers doctrine and the implications of vesting judicial power in a non-judicial officer. It was held that the scheme did not contravene the doctrine because the power conferred on the registrar was not the exercise of a judicial function but rather an administrative or executive power. The Court found that the registrar's role in making a sequestration order was ancillary to the primary judicial function, and therefore did not infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed separation of powers. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the constitutional validity of the statutory scheme.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme did not unconstitutionally vest judicial power in a non-judicial officer, affirming the validity of section 149 of the Criminal Code. The decision clarified the boundaries within which legislative delegation of powers can occur without infringing upon the separation of powers doctrine.

Orders