Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? pointed to a Lawyers Weekly Folklaw post about an appeal about whether a magistrate should have relied on Wikipedia (strictly, Wiktionary) to determine the meaning of lap dance.
The case is Hayes v Surfers Paradise Rock and Roll Cafe Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 214 (AustLII).
Relevantly, Newton DCJ held (at [20]–[21], footnote omitted):
Unfortunately, in considering whether the words “private lap dancing room” describe an explicitly sexual act, the learned Magistrate had reference to an online dictionary Wiktionary at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lap_dance. The necessity for resorting to the online product relates directly to the failure by the prosecution to lead any evidence as to what was meant by the terms “striptease” or “private lap dancing room”. Senior Counsel for SPRRC and Mick Pikos submits that such a course was inappropriate and an error of jurisdiction.
In my view, at the very least, the learned Magistrate should have given the defendants appropriate opportunity to contradict or comment on the meaning provided by (and apparently accepted by the Magistrate) the online service. The failure to permit the parties any opportunity of making submissions with respect to the Wiktionary entry as to the meaning of “lap dance” must be seen as a denial of natural justice.
More interestingly, at [23]–[24], Newton DCJ considered two other decisions in which the nature of Wikipedia as reliable evidence was considered, which complements Pete Black’s posts in June 2006 and January 2007. The cases are:
MZXMM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 975, in which McInnis FM held that the Refugee Review Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by relying on Wikipedia (at [129]).
Environment Protection Authority v Bowport All Roads Transport Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 103 (Lawlink, AustLII), in which Sheahan J rejected the evidence of an expert who, in part, relied on Wikipedia in his evidence.
