WYLIE & WYLIE

The Family Court of Australia considered the case of Wylie & Wylie, brought by Ms Wylie against Mr Wylie. The dispute involved a contravention application filed by the mother, which contained admissions of perjury in an affidavit. The court was required to determine whether to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of criminal proceedings.

The central legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to refer the mother's admissions of perjury to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This involved weighing various factors, including the circumstances under which the admissions were made, the mother's personal history, and the quality of her legal representation. The court also considered the principle that while it has the power to refer matters, it is not always obliged to do so, particularly where the irregularities are not blatant or substantial, as suggested in *Malpass v Mayson*.

Justice Tree reasoned that the mother's admission of perjury in her affidavit was unnecessary and irrelevant to the contravention application. Furthermore, the court accepted submissions that the mother had not been competently represented by her legal team, both in the preparation of the affidavit and in court. It was noted that the admission of perjury was made in a misguided attempt to protect her parents from the knowledge of her childhood sexual abuse, a factor that elicited sympathy. Considering these mitigating circumstances, including the mother's history as a victim of abuse and the lack of competent legal advice, the court concluded that a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions was not warranted.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion not to refer the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The contravention application itself was dismissed.