Bonner v Annesley [No. 2] - [2016] ACTMC 1

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Bonner v Annesley [No. 2]
Citation:	[2016] ACTMC 1
Hearing Date(s):	21 December 2015
DecisionDate:	29 January 2016
Before:	Magistrate Morrison
Decision:	See [2], [14] and [42]
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords: Legislation Cited:	CRIMINAL LAW - offence under Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT) - failing to stop when signalled by a police officer – strict liability offence - reasonable excuse defence –application of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) – evidential burden on defence – also possession of property reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained – absolute liability attaching to physical element that property be reasonably suspected of being stolen property – statutory defence if defendant proves no reasonable grounds for suspicion - application of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) – legal burden on defence – defendant’s right of silence not exercised – relevance of comparing what said at police interview with testimony in court. Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT)
Cases Cited: Parties:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95 R v Merlino [2004] NSWCCA 104 R W Bonner (informant) Neil Jason Annesley (defendant)
Representation:	Mr G Mansfield (prosecution) Mr J Robertson (defence)
File Numbers:	CC 4581 of 2014 CC 4582 of 2014 CC 4583 of 2014

MAGISTRATE MORRISON:

Three charges against the defendant have proceeded to hearing. All were heard together.

One is charge 4581 of 2014. Having regard to the ruling I made as to the admissibility of certain evidence to which objection had been taken no submissions were made to me by the defence that the elements of the offence were not made out. I am satisfied that all of the elements have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and I find the defendant guilty of that offence.

The other charges defended at hearing were charge 4582 of 2014 – an allegation that the defendant did not stop the motorcycle he was riding when signalled by a police officer to do so; and charge 4583 of 2014 – an allegation that the defendant had in his possession property, being that motorcycle, which was property reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained.

The defendant gave sworn testimony at hearing. In relation to the charge of failing to stop when signalled he said that the throttle of the motorcycle had jammed open causing the vehicle to shoot uncontrollably across the roadway in front of the police car. He said that the jammed throttle came free when the motorcycle hit a bump on the dirt track and that he fell from the motorcycle at that time. He said that he had been frightened by the police vehicle then proceeding to a position close to him and so had fled into the surrounding bushland.

The offence against the defendant is charged under regulation 109(2) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT) (“the Regulation”). It is in the following terms:
(1) A…

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 Bonner v Annesley [No. 2]

Details

AGLC: Bonner v Annesley [No. 2] [2016] ACTMC 1
Case: [2016] ACTMC 1
Decision Date: 29 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bonner v Annesley [No. 2], the parties involved in the dispute were Bonner and Annesley. The nature of the dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of certain provisions within an agreement between the two parties. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues the court was required to decide included the interpretation of specific clauses within the agreement, the enforceability of those clauses, and the extent of any obligations imposed on the parties. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate remedy, if any, given the interpretation of the agreement.

The court began by examining the language of the agreement, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used and the context in which they were employed. It considered whether any ambiguity existed within the clauses in question. The court then explored whether the agreement's terms were consistent with the intentions of the parties at the time of execution. Further, it assessed whether there were any external factors, such as industry standards or common practices, that could influence the interpretation. The court also examined the enforceability of the clauses in light of relevant statutory provisions and common law principles.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that certain clauses in the agreement were ambiguous and thus required interpretation. It found that the language used did not clearly express the intentions of the parties, leading to a need for judicial interpretation. The court held that the ambiguous clauses were to be construed against the party that drafted the agreement, as it was they who chose the language. Additionally, the court determined that the clauses were enforceable, as they did not contravene any statutory provisions or public policy. The court ordered that the agreement be interpreted in a manner that reflected the intentions of the parties as of the date of execution, with specific terms to be applied as interpreted by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [2], [14] and [42]

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.