Hooper v Hawkins [1969] HCA 69

Hooper v Hawkins [1969] HCA 69

The first summons was directed to Benjamin, but the magistrate found that the liquor was not found in Benjamin's possession. Because s. 132 (1) requires the person actually found in possession of the liquor to be summoned and given the opportunity to show cause, the proceedings against Benjamin were abortive and did not amount to a final hearing of the complaint or exhaust the statutory process. The original complaint therefore remained capable of supporting a further summons to the respondents, and the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to proceed. The Supreme Court's order for prohibition was wrongly made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Order for Prohibition / High Court Appeal
Outcome
Special leave granted. Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['prohibition' 'jurisdiction of Magistrates Court' 'forfeiture of Seized Liquor' 'construction of S. 132 (1) of the Liquor Acts, 1912 to 1965']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'liquor Licensing'] ['prohibition' 'jurisdiction of Magistrates Court' 'forfeiture of Seized Liquor' 'construction of S. 132 (1) of the Liquor Acts, 1912 to 1965']

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

Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Order for Prohibition / High Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrates Court at Brisbane had jurisdiction to hear a summons directed to the respondents to show cause why seized liquor should not be forfeited.' 'Whether the original complaint under s. 132 (1) of The Liquor Acts, 1912 to 1965 had been heard and determined when an earlier summons against Benjamin was dismissed as a nullity because the liquor was not found in his possession.' 'Whether a justice could issue a further summons to the persons in whose possession the liquor was said to have been found after the earlier abortive summons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first summons was directed to Benjamin, but the magistrate found that the liquor was not found in Benjamin's possession. Because s. 132 (1) requires the person actually found in possession of the liquor to be summoned and given the opportunity to show cause, the proceedings against Benjamin were abortive and did not amount to a final hearing of the complaint or exhaust the statutory process. The original complaint therefore remained capable of supporting a further summons to the respondents, and the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to proceed. The Supreme Court's order for prohibition was wrongly made.

Court Disposition

Special leave granted. Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Special leave granted.' 'Appeal allowed with costs.' "Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside and in lieu thereof order that the rule nisi for prohibition be discharged, prosecutors to pay respondents' costs."]