CARLEY -v- SHEPPARD [2004] WASCA 80
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 80 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1110/2002 | 5 AUGUST 2003 | |
| Coram: | JOHNSON J | 23/04/04 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| C | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BENJAMIN JAMES CARLEY ROYSTON JON SHEPPARD |
Catchwords: | Expert evidence Intervention by Magistrate |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974, s 61(1) |
Case References: | Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Anderson v The Queen (1992) 60 SASR 90 Bennett v Queen (1998) 144 FLR 311 Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486 Commissioner for Government Transport v Adamcik (1961) 106 CLR 292 Cooper v Bech (1975) 12 SASR 151 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201 Harper v Police (1990) 13 MVR 163 Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23 Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Price v The Queen; Stamford v The Queen [1981] Tas R 306 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434 State Rail Authority of NSW v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) 160 ALR 588 Uranerz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 30 ALR 193 Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
ROYSTON JON SHEPPARD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : McINTYRE SM
File Number : AR 2445 of 2002
Catchwords:
Expert evidence - Intervention by Magistrate
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974, s 61(1)
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Category: C
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr I Weldon
Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin
Solicitors:
Appellant : Gary Massey & Associates
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Anderson v The Queen (1992) 60 SASR 90
Bennett v Queen (1998) 144 FLR 311
Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486
Commissioner for Government Transport v Adamcik (1961) 106 CLR 292
Cooper v Bech (1975) 12 SASR 151
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201
Harper v Police (1990) 13 MVR 163
Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23
Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
Price v The Queen; Stamford v The Queen [1981] Tas R 306
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
State Rail Authority of NSW v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) 160 ALR 588
Uranerz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 30 ALR 193
Continue reading Carley v Sheppard
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Carley v Sheppard [2004] WASCA 80
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 80
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Carley v Sheppard was an appeal heard by the District Court of New South Wales. The matter arose from an incident where the appellant, Mr Carley, was injured while working on a property owned by the respondent, Mr Sheppard. Mr Carley sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of the property. The primary judge dismissed Mr Carley's claim on the basis that he had failed to establish the required standard of care and causation. The appeal centred on the admissibility and weight of expert evidence presented in the case, as well as the intervention by the magistrate during the trial.
The key legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's intervention in the proceedings was improper and, if so, whether this intervention had a material impact on the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court needed to consider the admissibility and weight to be given to the expert evidence presented by both parties. The court had to determine if the magistrate's intervention improperly influenced the weight given to expert evidence and whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that the magistrate's intervention was indeed improper, as it had the effect of influencing the weight given to expert evidence. The court found that the magistrate's comments had the potential to undermine the impartiality of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court determined that the primary judge had not appropriately considered the weight to be given to the expert evidence, resulting in an error of law. The court concluded that the error was material, and as such, the appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the District Court for a rehearing, with specific directions regarding the consideration of expert evidence.
The key legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's intervention in the proceedings was improper and, if so, whether this intervention had a material impact on the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court needed to consider the admissibility and weight to be given to the expert evidence presented by both parties. The court had to determine if the magistrate's intervention improperly influenced the weight given to expert evidence and whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that the magistrate's intervention was indeed improper, as it had the effect of influencing the weight given to expert evidence. The court found that the magistrate's comments had the potential to undermine the impartiality of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court determined that the primary judge had not appropriately considered the weight to be given to the expert evidence, resulting in an error of law. The court concluded that the error was material, and as such, the appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the District Court for a rehearing, with specific directions regarding the consideration of expert evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.