O'Sullivan v Reedy [1953] HCA 36

O'Sullivan v Reedy [1953] HCA 36

Special leave was refused because the Full Court correctly held that s. 93 (1) of the Police Act 1936-1951 S.A. required an allegation and proof of an actual reasonable suspicion before the charge was made, not merely facts from which a hypothetical reasonable person could have formed such a suspicion; the complaint using "might have been" was insufficient, and the Justices Act point did not provide a sufficient ground for the High Court to grant special leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Full Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['possession of Property Suspected of Having Been Stolen or Unlawfully Obtained' 'sufficiency of Complaint' 'interpretation of S. 93 (1) of the Police Act 1936 1951 S.a.' 'actual Reasonable Suspicion Versus Hypothetical Reasonable Suspicion' 'application of Justices Act Amendment or Saving Provisions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['possession of Property Suspected of Having Been Stolen or Unlawfully Obtained' 'sufficiency of Complaint' 'interpretation of S. 93 (1) of the Police Act 1936 1951 S.a.' 'actual Reasonable Suspicion Versus Hypothetical Reasonable Suspicion' 'application of Justices Act Amendment or Saving Provisions']

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 / High Court Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Full Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a complaint under s. 93 (1) of the Police Act 1936-1951 S.A. must allege that the property was actually suspected on reasonable grounds of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained before the charge was made, or whether it is enough to allege that it might have been reasonably suspected.' 'Whether ss. 22a, 55 and 181 of the Justices Act 1921-1943 S.A. should be applied to cure or support the complaint.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the Full Court correctly held that s. 93 (1) of the Police Act 1936-1951 S.A. required an allegation and proof of an actual reasonable suspicion before the charge was made, not merely facts from which a hypothetical reasonable person could have formed such a suspicion; the complaint using "might have been" was insufficient, and the Justices Act point did not provide a sufficient ground for the High Court to grant special leave.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused.']