BOWMAN -v- WOOLER [2016] WASC 409

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 409
Published:	15/12/2016
Case No:	SJA:1061/2016	Heard:	12 DECEMBER 2016
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	12/12/16
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal upheld
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THERESA CLARE BOWMAN ANTHONY DOUGLAS WOOLER
Catchwords:	Criminal law and sentencing Whether conviction for offence under s 34 Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) engaged power to order motor vehicle licence disqualification under s 105 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Legislation:	Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 34 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 105
Case References:	Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27 Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378 City of Kwinana v Lamont [2014] WASCA 112 Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503 Director General of Department of Transport v McKenzie [2016] WASCA 147 Kaporonovski v The Queen [1973] HCA 35; (1973) 133 CLR 209 Muir v Morton [1984] WAR 254 Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans [2005] HCA 28; (2005) 221 CLR 249

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : BOWMAN -v- WOOLER [2016] WASC 409 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 12 DECEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2016 PUBLISHED : 15 DECEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : SJA 1061 of 2016 BETWEEN : THERESA CLARE BOWMAN

Appellant

AND

ANTHONY DOUGLAS WOOLER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN

File No : MI 6205 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law and sentencing - Whether conviction for offence under s 34 Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) engaged power to order motor vehicle licence disqualification under s 105 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Legislation:

Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 34

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 105

Result:

Appeal upheld

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M A Perrella

Respondent : Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

Appellant : Perrella Legal

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378
City of Kwinana v Lamont [2014] WASCA 112
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 250 CLR 503
Director General of Department of Transport v McKenzie [2016] WASCA 147
Kaporonovski v The Queen [1973] HCA 35; (1973) 133 CLR 209
Muir v Morton [1984] WAR 254
Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans [2005] HCA 28; (2005) 221 CLR 249

BEECH J

Introduction

1 The appellant appealed against a magistrate's order that she be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 6…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bowman v Wooler and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WASC 409
Decision Date: 15 DECEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bowman v Wooler, the appellant, Bowman, appealed a decision of the District Court of Western Australia, which had convicted him of driving under the influence of alcohol. The District Court imposed a sentence, which included an order disqualifying Bowman from holding a driver’s licence for a period of six months. The appeal concerned the legality of the court's power to impose such a disqualification order under the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) following a conviction under section 34 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA).

The central issue before the court was whether the District Court had the authority to order a disqualification from holding a driver’s licence under section 105 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) upon conviction for an offence under section 34 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA). The court needed to determine if such a disqualification order was permissible as part of the sentencing process for this particular offence. The appellant argued that the disqualification order was not a valid sentencing option for this offence, whereas the respondent maintained that the court had the requisite power under the Sentencing Act.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and concluded that the power to disqualify a person from holding a driver’s licence was not available under the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) for convictions under section 34 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA). The court held that the District Court did not possess the authority to impose such a disqualification order as part of the sentencing process for this specific offence. Consequently, the court found that the disqualification order was not legally valid and, as a result, the appeal was upheld.

The final order of the court was that the appeal was upheld, and the disqualification order imposed by the District Court was deemed invalid.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal upheld

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.