Oakley, J.C. v. Luff, P.M. [1987] FCA 128

Oakley, J.C. v. Luff, P.M. [1987] FCA 128

The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant was the holder of a valid permit to sell liquor, as the permit was issued by a person who was not properly appointed Registrar or Deputy Registrar. The doctrine of de facto officers could not supply the missing authority, and thus the essential ingredient of the offence was not proved.

Parties
Appellant: Julian Christopher Oakley; Respondent: Paul Michael Luff
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Liquor Licensing, Offence of Selling Liquor to a Minor, De Facto Officers Doctrine
Criminal Law Liquor Licensing Offence of Selling Liquor to a Minor De Facto Officers Doctrine

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Christopher Oakley

Appellant

Paul Michael Luff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was the holder of a permit to sell liquor under the Liquor Ordinance 1975 (A.C.T.)
  2. 2 Whether a permit issued by a person not properly appointed as Registrar or Deputy Registrar was valid
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of de facto officers applies to establish an essential ingredient of a criminal offence

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant was the holder of a valid permit to sell liquor, as the permit was issued by a person who was not properly appointed Registrar or Deputy Registrar. The doctrine of de facto officers could not supply the missing authority, and thus the essential ingredient of the offence was not proved.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made on 19 February 1986 is set aside.
  • In lieu thereof, the appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed, the order nisi is discharged.