Gilmour, Douglas Anthony v. Midways Springwood Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 198

Gilmour, Douglas Anthony v. Midways Springwood Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 198

The informations did not allege offences for which the Minister had consented to prosecution; the court had no jurisdiction. The offences contained in the proposed amendments were new offences and could not be charged after the limitation period expired. Consequently, amendment was refused and the informations were dismissed.

Parties
Prosecutor: Douglas Anthony Gilmour; Defendant: Midways Springwood Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 1980
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment on Application to Amend Informations and for Dismissal
Outcome
Informations dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Requirement of Minister's Consent for Prosecution, Amendment of Informations, Limitation Periods for Prosecutions
Trade Practices Criminal Law Requirement of Minister's Consent for Prosecution Amendment of Informations Limitation Periods for Prosecutions

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Anthony Gilmour

Prosecutor

Midways Springwood Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment on Application to Amend Informations and for Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the informations laid were for the same offences as those for which the Minister consented to prosecution under s.53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the court could amend the informations after the expiry of the limitation period in s.21(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1914

Ratio Decidendi

The informations did not allege offences for which the Minister had consented to prosecution; the court had no jurisdiction. The offences contained in the proposed amendments were new offences and could not be charged after the limitation period expired. Consequently, amendment was refused and the informations were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Informations dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • Both informations be dismissed.
  • The prosecutor pay to the defendant its taxed costs of the proceedings.