Bond v Mastrangelo - [2013] WASC 400

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BOND -v- MASTRANGELO [2013] WASC 400

CORAM: ALLANSON J

HEARD: 29 OCTOBER 2013

DELIVERED : 5 NOVEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1075 of 2013

BETWEEN: LEE GLENYSE BOND
Appellant
AND
JUSTIN BRADLEY MASTRANGELO
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE M S KING
File No  :AR 2743 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against decision of magistrate - Road traffic offence - Whether grounds have any reasonable prospect of success - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 10(3)
National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 98A

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal refused on all grounds
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms J N Harman

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Macdonald v County Court of Victoria [2013] VSC 109
Pearce v Dennis [1997] QCA 239
Radalj v Taylor (1997) 26 MVR 11

ALLANSON J: The appellant Lee Glenyse Bond was convicted of exceeding the speed limit by not more than 9 km per hour. She was fined $75. Ms Bond seeks leave to appeal from the conviction. Ms Bond represented herself at trial and again on appeal.
The appeal notice was filed just over a month after the 28 day period in s 10(3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) had expired. Ms Bond says she was late because of a delay in obtaining transcript. I am satisfied that I should extend time to commence the appeal.
The application for leave was heard at the same time as the appeal, and I heard full argument on all grounds. For the reasons which follow, I am not satisfied that any of the grounds of appeal has reasonable prospects of succeeding and leave should be refused on all grounds.

The trial

In December 2011, Ms Bond was served with an infringement notice. The particulars on the notice alleged that the date of offence was 14 September 2011; the place of the offence was Ranford Road Canning Vale, near Waratah Boulevard; and the time of the offence was 4.36 pm. The speed allowed in that area was 70 km per hour and it was alleged Ms Bond was driving at 78 km per hour.
Ms Bond elected to contest the infringement notice.
The principal evidence against her was from Mr Enoch Felix Liu. Mr Liu is certified as an authorised person within the meaning of s 98A(1)(b)(ii) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and is competent to use the Vitronic PoliScan Speed M1 speed measuring equipment. He produced his certificate. The Vitronic PoliScan Speed M1 is approved equipment for ascertaining speed under s 98A: a notice of the approval was published in the Government Gazette of 10 December 2010. A copy of the Gazette was tendered. In everyday terms, the Vitronic PoliScan Speed M1 is…

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 Mastrangelo

Details

AGLC: Bond v Mastrangelo [2013] WASC 400
Case: [2013] WASC 400
Decision Date: 5 NOVEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bond v Mastrangelo, the appellant sought to appeal a decision rendered by a magistrate in relation to a road traffic offence. The respondent, Mastrangelo, was found guilty of driving without due care and attention, resulting in a fine and penalty points on their licence. The appellant, Bond, contests this conviction and the associated penalties, arguing that the evidence provided was insufficient to support the magistrate's decision. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant was represented by counsel and the respondent was represented by the Department of Public Prosecutions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the magistrate's findings. The appellant argued that the evidence did not establish the necessary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that there were significant inconsistencies in the witness testimonies. The court was required to determine if the appeal had any reasonable prospect of success based on the merits of the case. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence, including witness statements, video footage, and expert opinion.

The court concluded that the evidence provided to the magistrate was sufficient to support the findings of guilt. The inconsistencies in the testimonies did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence, and the court found that the magistrate had appropriately assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The court determined that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success, as the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and penalties were upheld.

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the original conviction and penalties imposed by the magistrate remain in effect. The court did not make any further orders regarding the matter.

Orders