Hall v Braybrook [1956] HCA 30

Hall v Braybrook [1956] HCA 30

By majority (McTiernan, Williams, Kitto JJ. in the judgment; Dixon C.J. and Fullagar J. dissenting), the words 'any circumstances' in s. 72 of the Crimes Act 1928 (Vict.) permit magistrates to have regard to previous convictions of the person charged when deciding whether to proceed summarily or commit for trial on indictment. The discretion is not limited strictly to circumstances of the charge itself. The refusal to deal with a matter summarily is reviewable; however, in this case, the justices acted within their discretion.

Parties
Appellant: Patrick Hall; Respondent: Ronald Mayne Braybrook
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Mode of Trial, Summary Jurisdiction, Antecedents and Previous Convictions, Review of Magistrates' Decisions
Criminal Law Procedure Mode of Trial Summary Jurisdiction Antecedents and Previous Convictions Review of Magistrates' Decisions

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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Hall

Appellant

Ronald Mayne Braybrook

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under s. 72 of the Crimes Act 1928 (Vict.), justices may have regard to previous convictions/antecedents of a defendant in deciding whether a charge should be dealt with summarily or on indictment.
  2. 2 Whether refusal by justices to adjudicate summarily is reviewable by the Supreme Court under Justices Act 1928 (Vic.) s. 150.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (McTiernan, Williams, Kitto JJ. in the judgment; Dixon C.J. and Fullagar J. dissenting), the words 'any circumstances' in s. 72 of the Crimes Act 1928 (Vict.) permit magistrates to have regard to previous convictions of the person charged when deciding whether to proceed summarily or commit for trial on indictment. The discretion is not limited strictly to circumstances of the charge itself. The refusal to deal with a matter summarily is reviewable; however, in this case, the justices acted within their discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Order nisi to review discharged
  • Appellant to pay costs