BURNS -v- MELIA [2005] WASCA 57

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASCA 57
Case No:	SJA:1137/2004	Heard:	31 JANUARY 2005
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	31/03/05
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Matter remitted for rehearing
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	AARON NOEL BURNS HEIDI LOUISE MELIA
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Driving offences Offence of driving without an appropriate licence against s 49(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) Offence committed whilst under court-ordered driving suspension Prior conviction for driving whilst under fine-suspension Whether offence of driving whilst under court-ordered suspension was a first or subsequent offence for purposes of determining penalty under s 49(3)(a) Road Traffic Act
Legislation:	Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18, s 19 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49
Case References:	Chilcott v Waterhouse (1994) 21 MVR 439 Mills v Meeking (1990) 91 ALR 16 Sevelj v Roffey [2002] WASCA 20 Thompson v Goold & Co (1910) AC 409 Tokyo Mart Pty Ltd v Campbell (1988) 15 NSWLR 275 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BURNS -v- MELIA [2005] WASCA 57 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 31 JANUARY 2005 DELIVERED : 31 MARCH 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1137 of 2004 MATTER : The Justices Act 1902 (WA) BETWEEN : AARON NOEL BURNS

Appellant

AND

HEIDI LOUISE MELIA

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR M D WHEELER SM

File No : JO 9213 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Driving offences - Offence of driving without an appropriate licence against s 49(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Offence committed whilst under court-ordered driving suspension - Prior conviction for driving whilst under fine-suspension - Whether offence of driving whilst under court-ordered suspension was a first or subsequent offence for purposes of determining penalty under s 49(3)(a) Road Traffic Act

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18, s 19

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49

Result:

Appeal allowed

Matter remitted for rehearing

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Ms R C Panetta

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Solicitor

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

Chilcott v Waterhouse (1994) 21 MVR 439
Mills v Meeking (1990) 91 ALR 16
Sevelj v Roffey [2002] WASCA 20
Thompson v Goold & Co (1910) AC 409
Tokyo Mart Pty Ltd v Campbell (1988) 15 NSWLR 275

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

SIMMONDS J

Introduction

1 This matter raises a narrow question of interpretation of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49. That section creates the offence of driving without the appropriate or any licence. The question is one on which I was told there is a division of opinion amongst Magistrates. It is one on which neither counsel nor I have found any authority. What is the appropriate sentencing range to apply to an offender facing sentencing for driving…

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 Burns v Melia

Details

AGLC: Burns v Melia [2005] WASCA 57
Case: [2005] WASCA 57
Decision Date: 31 MARCH 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burns v Melia involved the appellant, Burns, who was convicted of driving without an appropriate licence while under a court-ordered suspension. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether this offence constituted a first or subsequent offence for the purposes of penalty determination under section 49(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). Burns had a prior conviction for driving while under a fine suspension, which could potentially impact the severity of the penalty imposed.

The primary legal issue was whether the offence of driving under a court-ordered suspension should be considered a first or subsequent offence when assessing the penalty. The court needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act and consider the precedent set by previous cases in this area of law. Specifically, the court had to examine how the prior conviction for driving while under a fine suspension should influence the classification of the current offence.

The court held that the offence of driving under a court-ordered suspension should be considered a subsequent offence, as it was not the appellant's first instance of driving under a suspension. The court emphasised that the nature of the previous suspension and the context in which it was imposed were relevant factors. The court found that the appellant's prior conviction for driving under a fine suspension constituted a relevant prior offence, which warranted the current offence to be classified as subsequent. This interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to impose more severe penalties on repeat offenders.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a rehearing to ensure that the appropriate penalty was imposed based on the classification of the offence as subsequent. The court's decision underscored the importance of accurately interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and applying them in light of the appellant's prior conviction history.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Matter remitted for rehearing

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.