JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bant v Grant
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 276

---

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Charge of speeding contrary to r 20(1), Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) – Charge misdescribed location of offence; did not state time of day or description of vehicle – Whether charge could be amended to correctly describe location of offence – Whether charge sufficiently described nature of offence – Whether amendment had effect of charging new offence – Essential elements of offence of speeding contrary to r 20(1) – Whether time of day an essential element of offence – Effect of s 9(2), Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) – Whether charge contained particulars necessary to give reasonable information as to the nature of the charge – Whether reasonable information included description of vehicle – Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic), r 20 – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 6, 8, 9, 32, Sch 1, cl 1(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr WJ Walsh-Buckley	Dwyer Legal
For the First Defendant	Ms EH Ruddle QC	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

On 21 September 2019, Brandon Bant was charged by Senior Constable Diane Grant with a speeding offence under r 20(1) of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic). The charge-sheet filed by SC Grant at the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Warrnambool provided the following details of the charge:

The accused at Camperdown on 23/06/2019, being the driver of a vehicle, other than a heavy vehicle, on a length of road, namely, Princes Hwy between Rowans Road and Jubilee Park Rd, did drive at a speed which exceeded a speed-limit sign of 100 kilometres per hour, which applied to the accused for the length of road on which the accused was driving, by less than 35 kilometres per hour. Detected speed 129 km/h. Alleged speed 127 km/h.

Rule 20 of the Road Rules is headed ‘Obeying the speed-limit’, and contains five separate speeding offences. Mr Bant was charged under r 20(1), which provides:

A driver of a vehicle other than a heavy vehicle must not drive at a speed which exceeds the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving by less than 35 kilometres per hour.
Penalty: In the case of a natural person, 10 penalty units;

In the case of a body corporate, 120 penalty units.

Mr Bant contested the validity of the charge, on the basis that it did not provide ‘reasonable information as to the nature of the charge’, as required by s 6(3) and Sch 1, cl 1(b) of the

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 Bant v Grant

Details

AGLC: Bant v Grant [2021] VSC 276
Case: [2021] VSC 276
Decision Date: 19 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bant v Grant involved the defendant, Bant, contesting a speeding charge issued under rule 20(1) of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic). The defendant argued that the charge misstated the location of the offence, did not specify the time of day, and omitted a description of the vehicle involved. The central issue before the court was whether the charge could be amended to rectify the misdescription and whether the charge was sufficiently descriptive of the offence under the relevant statutory provisions. Additionally, the court had to determine if the amendment would constitute a new offence and whether certain elements, such as the time of day and vehicle description, were essential to the offence.

The court examined the essential elements of the speeding offence as outlined in the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) and considered the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). It was established that the location of the offence was an essential element, but the court found that the time of day and description of the vehicle were not essential elements of the offence of speeding. The court concluded that the charge sufficiently described the nature of the offence despite the errors. Furthermore, the amendment of the charge did not amount to a new offence, and the particulars in the charge were sufficient to give reasonable information about the nature of the charge, even without the vehicle description.

The court held that the charge could be amended to correct the misdescription of the location and that the charge did not need to include the time of day or a description of the vehicle to be valid. The amendment did not change the fundamental nature of the offence, and the particulars provided were sufficient to inform the defendant of the charge against them. The court ruled in favour of the prosecution, affirming that the charge was valid and could proceed as amended.

Orders