Attorney-General for SA & Anor v Bell

[2013] SASCFC 88

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Construction of penal provisions
4. › Temporal operation of qualifying conditions
5. › Whether 'within 10 years of the date of the offence' permits forward-looking application
6. › Use of extrinsic materials
7. › Explanatory memoranda and second reading speeches
8. › Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 (SA), s 12(1)(a)(iii)
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Consideration of extrinsic matters
4. › Parliamentary debates and materials
5. › Weight to be accorded to second reading speeches
6. › Whether parliamentary materials can displace clear meaning of statutory text
7. › Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), s 16
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Operation and effect of the Commonwealth Constitution
3. › Restrictions on State legislation
4. › Judicial integrity principle (Kable doctrine)
5. › Whether mandatory forfeiture on prosecution application offends judicial integrity
6. › Whether legislation requiring court to impose penalty selected by prosecution is invalid
7. › Whether Palling v Corfield binding on intermediate appellate court notwithstanding subsequent Kable line of authority
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Judicial power
3. › Conferral on State courts
4. › Mandatory penalties
5. › Whether Parliament may validly require court to impose particular penalty on occurrence of contingency determined by Executive
6. › National Service Act 1968 (Cth), s 49

Quick Take

Section 12(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 (SA) requires the other prescribed offences to predate the forfeiture application, and the application must be made before finalisation of the conviction proceedings. The provision is constitutionally valid, Palling v Corfield being binding authority that Parliament may validly require a court to impose a particular penalty contingent upon a prosecution request. The question whether Palling v Corfield has been impliedly overruled by the Kable line of authority is a matter exclusively for the High Court.