Davies v Ryan [1933] HCA 64
The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order of dismissal constitutes an appealable 'order', 'ruling', or 'determination'. Further, the information, by following the words of the ordinance and disclosing one offence only, was sufficient in law and the magistrate should not have dismissed it for lack of particulars.
- Parties
- Informant: Alfred David Davies; Defendant/respondent: Mary Ryan
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions to High Court (decision on Preliminary Objection and Merits)
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Appeals, Summary Offences, Information Sufficiency, Magistrates' Jurisdiction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfred David Davies
Informant
Mary Ryan
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions to High Court (decision on Preliminary Objection and Merits)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of dismissal under sec. 143(1) of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance
- 2 Whether the information laid was sufficient in law to disclose an offence under the Liquor Ordinance 1929-1932
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order of dismissal constitutes an appealable 'order', 'ruling', or 'determination'. Further, the information, by following the words of the ordinance and disclosing one offence only, was sufficient in law and the magistrate should not have dismissed it for lack of particulars.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Order of dismissal set aside
- Matter remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions to hear and determine the information
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment