ANDERSON -v- EDWARDS [2003] WASCA 59

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 59
Case No:	SJA:1147/2002	Heard:	7 MARCH 2003
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	7/03/03
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRENDON EUGENE ANDERSON MICHAEL BRUCE EDWARDS
Catchwords:	Appeal Road Traffic Act 1974 Driving while under suspension Sentence of imprisonment Previous convictions in Children's Court wrongly taken into account Young Offenders Act (1994) Appeal allowed, fine substituted
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 Young Offenders Act 1994, s 189
Case References:	P (A Child) (1997) 94 A Crim R 593 Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ANDERSON -v- EDWARDS [2003] WASCA 59 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 7 MARCH 2003 DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1147 of 2002 BETWEEN : BRENDON EUGENE ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

MICHAEL BRUCE EDWARDS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Road Traffic Act1974 - Driving while under suspension - Sentence of imprisonment - Previous convictions in Children's Court wrongly taken into account - Young Offenders Act (1994) - Appeal allowed, fine substituted

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974

Young Offenders Act 1994, s 189

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

P (A Child) (1997) 94 A Crim R 593

Case(s) also cited:

Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: This is an appeal, by leave granted by Roberts-Smith J on 24 December 2002, from the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant, Brendon Eugene Anderson, at the Court of Petty Sessions in Leonora on 10 December 2002 following his conviction, on a plea of guilty, for an offence of driving a motor vehicle without any motor driver's licence, his licence being under suspension at the time.

2 In the Court of Petty Sessions at Leonora the learned Magistrate, Mr D Imlah SM, imposed a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment for this offence and in addition imposed a period of disqualification of 9 months cumulative upon an earlier suspension. At the time of this conviction the appellant had been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, three other offences arising out of the same incident. The first was a charge of failing to stop when called upon by the police, contrary to the provisions of s 53(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. The second was one of dangerous driving, contrary to s 61(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The third was driving an unlicensed vehicle, contrary to s 15(3) of the Road Traffic Act. Separate orders were made by the learned Magistrate for each of those charges. In relation to the conviction for refusing to stop when called upon there was a fine…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Edwards [2003] WASCA 59
Case: [2003] WASCA 59
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anderson v Edwards involved the appellant, Anderson, appealing a conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court for driving while his licence was suspended. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice N. The respondent, Edwards, was the prosecutor, representing the state in the matter. The central issue in the appeal was whether the magistrate erred in taking into account Anderson's previous convictions in the Children's Court when imposing the sentence. Anderson argued that these prior convictions, which were dealt with under the Young Offenders Act 1994, should not have been considered as they were not admissible under the Road Traffic Act 1974.

The court was required to determine whether the inclusion of these prior convictions constituted a legal error that warranted the appeal to be allowed. The appellant contended that his previous convictions, which were dealt with under the Young Offenders Act, should not have been considered as they were not admissible under the Road Traffic Act. The court acknowledged that under the Young Offenders Act, certain convictions are not to be taken into account in subsequent criminal proceedings. The court had to assess whether the magistrate's consideration of these convictions in the sentencing process was an error that materially affected the outcome.

Upon reviewing the legal framework and the magistrate's sentencing remarks, the court found that the magistrate had indeed erred by taking into account the appellant's prior convictions in the Children's Court. This error was deemed to be material, as it influenced the severity of the sentence imposed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside. In lieu of the original sentence of imprisonment, the court substituted a fine, considering it an appropriate penalty for the offence committed while the appellant's licence was suspended.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.