Luff, Paul Michael v McHarg, Robert William [1984] FCA 235

Luff, Paul Michael v McHarg, Robert William [1984] FCA 235

The information was sufficient in law to disclose an offence known to the law, as it alleged a contravention of the Ordinance in terms sufficiently clear to meet statutory requirements. There was no ambiguity necessitating a construction against the prosecution, and both s.80 and s.103 could be construed in a way that avoids surplusage and gives effect to legislative intent. Section 103(2) limits who may initiate proceedings for certain offences rather than creating ambiguity or nullity.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Michael Luff; Respondent: Robert William McHarg
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Statutory Offences, Drafting of Informations, Interpretation of Penal Statutes, Legislative Intent
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Practice and Procedure Statutory Offences Drafting of Informations Interpretation of Penal Statutes Legislative Intent

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Michael Luff

Appellant

Robert William McHarg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the information upon which the respondent was convicted disclosed an offence known to the law
  2. 2 Whether s.80(1) or s.103(1) of the Liquor Ordinance 1975 creates the relevant offence
  3. 3 Whether the drafting of the information or institution of proceedings was defective such that the proceedings were a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

The information was sufficient in law to disclose an offence known to the law, as it alleged a contravention of the Ordinance in terms sufficiently clear to meet statutory requirements. There was no ambiguity necessitating a construction against the prosecution, and both s.80 and s.103 could be construed in a way that avoids surplusage and gives effect to legislative intent. Section 103(2) limits who may initiate proceedings for certain offences rather than creating ambiguity or nullity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The respondent's appeal against his conviction by the Court of Petty Sessions and against the penalty imposed in respect of that conviction be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to be heard and determined according to law.