Rizeq v WA

[2015] WASCA 81

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law and Procedure
2. › Bail
3. › Bail pending appeal
4. › Exceptional reasons
5. › Whether prospect of success on constitutional ground constituted exceptional reasons
6. › Bail Act 1982 (WA), sch 1 pt C cl 4A
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Trial by jury
3. › Section 80 of the Australian Constitution
4. › Whether s 80 applies to State offences tried in State court exercising federal jurisdiction
5. › Whether majority verdict for State offence unconstitutional
6. › Australian Constitution, s 80
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Inconsistency of laws
3. › Section 109 of the Australian Constitution
4. › Whether State provision permitting majority verdicts inconsistent with Commonwealth criminal provision subject to s 80 jury requirement
5. › Australian Constitution, s 109
6. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 114(2)
7. › Criminal Code (Cth), s 302.4
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Federal jurisdiction
3. › State courts invested with federal jurisdiction
4. › Whether exercise of federal jurisdiction by State court changes character of State offences
5. › Australian Constitution, s 75(iv), s 77(iii)
6. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2), s 68(2), s 79

Quick Take

Section 80 of the Australian Constitution, which requires trial by jury for offences against Commonwealth law, does not apply to State offences even where the State court exercises federal jurisdiction by reason of the parties' inter-State character. A majority verdict for a State offence under s 114(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) is not rendered unconstitutional merely because the trial court was invested with federal jurisdiction. This confirms that the exercise of federal jurisdiction does not change the essential nature of State offences.