Legal Research
Cases
Binetti v Feasey

Binetti v Feasey

Case [2015] WASC 93 20 March 2015

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BINETTI -v- FEASEY [2015] WASC 93

CORAM: CORBOY J

HEARD: 13 JANUARY 2015

DELIVERED : 20 MARCH 2015

FILE NO/S: SJA 1052 of 2014

BETWEEN: LEESANDA BINETTI
Appellant
AND
BARRY FEASEY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE CICCHINI
File No  :AM 2965 of 2005
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE FLYNN
File No  :AM 5837 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Whether s 24 Criminal Code (WA) applies to speeding offences - Whether appellant had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief as to the speed of her vehicle

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 24
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 11(3), reg 40(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr D J Anderson

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

August v Fingleton [1964] SASR 22
Cook v Commissioner of Police (Qld) [2012] QCA 118; (2012) 220 A Crim R 444
DPP v Bone [2005] NSWSC 1239
Franklin v Stacey (1981) 27 SASR 490
G J Coles & Coy Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183
Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129
Hawthorn (Department of Health) v Morcam Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 120
Hearn v McCann (1982) 29 SASR 488
Heckingbottom v Kell [2013] WASC 208
Illich v Woodburn [2004] WASCA 148
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
Kearon v Grant (1991) 1 VR 321
Lappan v Hughes [2003] WASCA 173
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Hunter [2013] NSWCCA 87; (2013) 83 NSWLR 637
McPherson v Cairn [1977] WAR 28
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56
Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Stern v Hodgson [2012] WASC 23
The State of Western Australia v 'R' [2007] WASCA 42; (2007) 33 WAR 483
Vandenbergh v Police [2005] SASC 197; (2005) 44 MVR 1
Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233
CORBOY J:

The charges alleged and the appellant's convictions

The appellant was charged with having committed four offences - that:
(a)on 4 November 2012 she exceeded the speed limit in a speed zone by 10 km per hour but not more than 19 km per hour, contrary to reg 11(3) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) (the Code);
(b)on the same date and at the same place, she contravened a red traffic control signal by failing to stop as near as practicable before reaching and proceeding beyond the stop line, contrary to reg 40(1) of the Code;
(c)on 2 December 2012 she exceeded the speed limit in a speed zone by not more than 9 km per hour, contrary to reg 11(3) of the Code; and
(d)on 27 January 2013 she exceeded 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 Binetti v Feasey

Details

AGLC: Binetti v Feasey [2015] WASC 93
Case: [2015] WASC 93
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Binetti v Feasey involves the appellant's challenge against her conviction for speeding offences in the Perth Magistrates Court. The appellant, Binetti, argued that she was entitled to rely on section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA), which provides a defence for an honest and reasonable mistake regarding the circumstances of an offence. Specifically, Binetti claimed that she genuinely believed she was not speeding, due to a mistake in her perception of the speed of her vehicle. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) could be invoked as a defence in speeding offences. The court needed to determine whether Binetti's belief about the speed of her vehicle was honest and reasonable, and if such a belief would exempt her from liability. This required a consideration of the objective elements of the offence and how they interact with the subjective belief defence provided by section 24.

The Supreme Court examined the objective elements of the speeding offence, which required proof of exceeding a specified speed limit. The court noted that the defence under section 24 was limited to circumstances where the defendant's belief about the factual context of the offence was honest and reasonable. Given the objective nature of speed limits, the court concluded that Binetti's mistaken belief about her speed did not negate the objective fact of exceeding the speed limit. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, holding that the appellant's belief was neither honest nor reasonable in the circumstances. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court did not make any additional orders beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction in the Magistrates Court. This decision reinforces the principle that objective elements of an offence, such as speed limits, are not negated by the defendant's honest but unreasonable belief about the circumstances of the offence.

Orders