Cater v Police - [2012] SASC 120

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
CATER v POLICE
[2012] SASC 120
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
20 July 2012
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR REASONABLE CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER ROAD USERS - DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - EVIDENCE - OTHER MATTERS
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT - PROOF AND EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted by Magistrate of driving without due care contrary to section 45 Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) - appellant and other motorist travelling in opposite directions - both approached a bend on an unsealed country road with limited visibility due to the bend's gradient and surrounding vegetation - corrugations and loose gravel on surface of the appellant’s side of the road - collision occurred between the motor vehicles when the appellant’s vehicle was on the incorrect side of the road - whether it was open on the evidence for the Magistrate to conclude that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt - whether the Magistrate simply preferred the version of events given by the other motorist to that given by the appellant.
Held: Appeal dismissed - this was not a case of oath against oath with the Magistrate simply having a preference of one person’s evidence against that of another - it was open on the evidence for the Magistrate to conclude that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45, referred to.
The Queen v Calides (1983) 34 SASR 355; R v Loader (2004) 89 SASR 204, considered.

CATER v POLICE
[2012] SASC 120
Magistrates Appeal
GRAY J:

This is an appeal against conviction.
The defendant and appellant, Neisha Tamara Cater, was charged on complaint with the offence of driving without due care contrary to section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The offence was alleged to have occurred on 13 June 2010 on Sunnyville Road near Napperby in rural South Australia.
On 22 February 2012, the defendant was convicted following a trial before a Magistrate. The Magistrate published reasons, concluding:
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was on the wrong side of the road and that her driving involves a departure from the standard of care required sufficient to prove the charge of driving without due care.
Sunnyville Road is an unsealed country road. A collision occurred near a bend between two motor vehicles, a Commodore driven by the defendant, and a Toyota driven by Stephen Cowdery. The defendant was travelling in a westerly direction and was traversing a right-hand bend for her direction of travel. The southern curve had greater elevation. The road had corrugations and loose material on its southern side. Mr Cowdery was travelling in an easterly direction toward the bend, a left-hand bend for his direction of travel.
The defendant travelled through…

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 Cater v Police

Details

AGLC: Cater v Police [2012] SASC 120
Case: [2012] SASC 120
Decision Date: 20 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved a case where the appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of driving without due care and attention, under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The incident occurred when the appellant and another motorist were travelling in opposite directions on an unsealed country road. Both vehicles approached a bend with limited visibility due to the road's gradient and surrounding vegetation. The appellant's side of the road had corrugations and loose gravel, and a collision occurred when the appellant's vehicle was on the incorrect side of the road.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was open to the Magistrate to conclude that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. A secondary issue was whether the Magistrate simply preferred the version of events given by the other motorist over that of the appellant. The appellant argued that the Magistrate had not properly assessed the evidence and had merely chosen one account over the other without adequate justification.

The court found that the appeal was not a straightforward case of oath against oath with the Magistrate simply preferring one account over the other. Instead, it was open to the Magistrate to conclude that the appellant was guilty based on the evidence. The court observed that the Magistrate had considered all relevant factors, including the road conditions, visibility, and the nature of the collision. The evidence suggested that the appellant had driven without due care and attention, resulting in the collision. The court held that the Magistrate's findings were not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction against the appellant was upheld. The appellant remained liable for the offence of driving without due care and attention under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).

Orders