YAM -v- RICHARDSON [2002] WASCA 177

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 177
Case No:	SJA:1036/2002	Heard:	21 JUNE 2002
Coram:	PARKER J	Delivered:	26/06/02
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BERNARD JOHN FOOK YIM YAM RODNEY KIM RICHARDSON
Catchwords:	Appeal Penalty Government grant False and misleading application Spent conviction order refused No error
Legislation:	First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 (WA), s 47 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45(1)
Case References:	Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Dempster v National Companies and Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 970731; 8 December 1997

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : YAM -v- RICHARDSON [2002] WASCA 177 CORAM : PARKER J HEARD : 21 JUNE 2002 DELIVERED : 26 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1036 of 2002 BETWEEN : BERNARD JOHN FOOK YIM YAM

Applicant

AND

RODNEY KIM RICHARDSON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Penalty - Government grant - False and misleading application - Spent conviction order refused - No error

Legislation:

First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 (WA), s 47

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr J B Prior

Respondent : Ms S T Gorman

Solicitors:

Applicant : Williams Ellison

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291

Case(s) also cited:

Dempster v National Companies and Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 970731; 8 December 1997

(Page 3)

1 PARKER J: This is an application for leave to appeal in respect of a sentence imposed upon the applicant in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 6 February 2002. The applicant had been convicted on his plea of guilty of providing information to the Commissioner of State Revenue knowing that information to be false and misleading in a material particular, contrary to s 47 of the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. The applicant was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay costs of $497.70 to the respondent. The learned Stipendiary Magistrate Mr D Jones SM refused to make a spent conviction order pursuant to s 45(1) of the Sentencing Act 1995. The application for leave to appeal is in respect of that refusal.

2 The applicant, with the consent of the respondent, sought to have both the application for leave and the full merits of the appeal heard together pursuant to s 190(1) of the Justices Act

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 Yam v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Yam v Richardson [2002] WASCA 177
Case: [2002] WASCA 177
Decision Date: 26 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yam and Richardson were parties in a legal dispute which was brought before the court. The matter centred around the refusal of a spent conviction order by the Tribunal, following a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to cancel a government grant awarded to Yam. The cancellation was due to Yam's prior false and misleading conduct in the application for the grant. Yam sought to appeal the decision of the Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of the evidence and in its application of the relevant legislation. The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had erred in law or otherwise in the manner it exercised its discretion in dismissing the appeal.

The court considered the scope of the Tribunal's discretion in reviewing the AAT's decision and the appropriate standard of review. The court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had not erred in its exercise of discretion. The court found that the Tribunal had appropriately weighed the relevant considerations and had not failed to take into account any material matter. The court further found that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment of the evidence and that its conclusion was reasonably open on the evidence before it.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not flawed and that there was no basis for the appeal to succeed. The appeal was dismissed, and the grant cancellation order remained in place. The court's decision affirms the importance of properly applying the relevant statutory provisions and exercising discretion appropriately in administrative law matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.