Bond v Hodgson - [2014] WASCA 200

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: BOND -v- HODGSON [2014] WASCA 200

CORAM: McLURE P
BUSS JA
MAZZA JA

HEARD: 5 SEPTEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CACR 175 of 2013

BETWEEN: LEE BOND
Appellant
AND
PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Respondent

FILE NO/S :CACR 86 of 2014

BETWEEN :LEE BOND
Appellant
AND
SERPENTINE JARRAHDALE SHIRE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No              :  CACR 175 of 2013
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :HALL J
Citation  :BOND -v- HODGSON [2013] WASC 257
File No  :SJA 1126 of 2012
For File No              :  CACR 86 of 2014
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :CORBOY J
File No  :SJA 1114 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court - Leave to appeal refused by the primary judge - Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to this court - Application for an extension of time to comply with a springing order

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court - Appellant's appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court dismissed by virtue of her non-compliance with orders made by the court - Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to this court

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 10, s 16, s 18
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), r 60, r 65
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 98A
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), r 11(6)
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(ii)

Result:

CACR 175 of 2013
Application for an extension of time to comply with Mazza JA's order made on 2 December 2013 dismissed
Appeal dismissed

CACR 86 of 2014
Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACR 175 of 2013

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

CACR 86 of 2014

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: McLeods Barristers & Solicitors

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

Nil

McLURE P: I agree with Buss JA.
BUSS JA:

CACR 175 of 2013: introduction

On 20 September 2012, the appellant was convicted, after a trial in the Magistrates Court before Magistrate Flynn, on one charge in a prosecution notice. The charge alleged that on 4 November 2011, at Forrest Road, Hilbert, the appellant drove a motor vehicle (registered number 1BGX-145), where a school zone sign was erected indicating a speed of 40 km an hour, at a speed exceeding 40 km an hour (namely 58 km an hour) at the beginning of the school zone and during the school zone periods indicated on the school zone sign, contrary to r 11(6) of the Road Traffic…

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 Bond v Hodgson

Details

AGLC: Bond v Hodgson [2014] WASCA 200
Case: [2014] WASCA 200
Decision Date: 3 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bond v Hodgson, the appellant, Bond, sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to the court. Bond had previously been convicted following a trial in the Magistrates Court. The primary judge had refused Bond leave to appeal, and Bond subsequently appealed to a single judge of the Supreme Court. However, this appeal was dismissed due to Bond's non-compliance with orders made by the court. Bond's appeal to the Supreme Court was based on the grounds that the primary judge had erred in his application of the law and that there were significant procedural errors during the trial.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved whether Bond's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted and whether there were any grounds for extending the time to comply with a springing order. The court also needed to consider whether the primary judge had erred in his application of the law and whether there were significant procedural errors during the trial.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that Bond's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted. The court found that there were reasonable grounds for Bond's belief that there were significant procedural errors during the trial. The court also found that the primary judge had erred in his application of the law, and that this error had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial. The court further found that there were reasonable grounds for extending the time to comply with a springing order.

The final orders of the court were that Bond's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was granted, and that the time to comply with a springing order was extended. The court also ordered that Bond's appeal to the Supreme Court be reconsidered in light of the findings of the court.

Orders