Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance and Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1994] IRCA 194

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance and Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1994] IRCA 194

The prosecutor failed to prove an element of the s306 offence because there was no written authority when the initial oral request was made, and the later letter did not constitute an authority in writing under s286: it did not authorise anyone to do anything and did not specify the relevant premises or employer as part of an authority. The information was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings for Imposition of a Penalty Under S306 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Urgent Hearing; Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Information
Outcome
Information dismissed.
Legal Topics
['right of Entry and Inspection' 'hindering or Obstructing Organisation Officer' 'written Authority Under S286' 'award Observance']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'criminal Proceedings'] ['right of Entry and Inspection' 'hindering or Obstructing Organisation Officer' 'written Authority Under S286' 'award Observance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings for Imposition of a Penalty Under S306 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Urgent Hearing; Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Information

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representatives of the defendant hindered or obstructed a Joint Federal Secretary of the prosecutor in the exercise of a right arising under s286(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.' 'Whether the prosecutor established that a written authority existed when the oral request was made at about 2.00pm or when the letter was sent at about 4.30pm on 15 November 1994.' 'Whether the letter of 15 November 1994 constituted an authority in writing of the type contemplated by s286.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutor failed to prove an element of the s306 offence because there was no written authority when the initial oral request was made, and the later letter did not constitute an authority in writing under s286: it did not authorise anyone to do anything and did not specify the relevant premises or employer as part of an authority. The information was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Information dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I dismiss the information.']