Director of Public Prosecutions v Burton - [2020] TASSC 16

[2020] TASSC 16
COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:                Director of Public Prosecutions v Burton [2020] TASSC 16
PARTIES:  MOORE, Luke (Senior Sergeant)
  v
  BURTON, Stephen Clement
FILE NO:  LCA 3206/2019
DELIVERED ON:  19 May 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  24 February 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Geason J
CATCHWORDS:
Magistrates – Appeal and Review – Motion to review – Granting of Restricted Licence – Severe and unusual hardship – Public interest.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1345]
Traffic Law – Licensing of drivers – Tasmania – Generally – Restricted Licence– Severe and unusual hardship – Alternate means of transport available – Evidence did not sustain finding of severe and unusual hardship – Appeal allowed.

Aust Dig Traffic Law [1056]
Traffic Law – Licensing of drivers – Tasmania – Generally – Restricted Licence – Public interest – Protection of other road users – Consideration of mental health – Relevance of prior convictions – Not afforded sufficient weight – Not in public interest to grant the licence – Appeal allowed.

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas), s 18.
Hayes v Peterson (1972) Tas R 86; Lowe v Mansfield [1988] TASSC 66, referred to.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1056]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
             Appellant:  E Stone
             Respondent:  No appearance
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number:  [2020] TASSC 16
Number of paragraphs:  29
Serial No 16/2020
File No LCA 3206/2019

SENIOR SERGEANT LUKE MOORE v STEPHEN CLEMENT BURTON
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GEASON J
19 May 2020
1On 3 December 2019, Magistrate S E Cure authorised the issue of a restricted driver's licence to the respondent, pursuant to s 18 of the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (the Act).
2The application for a restricted licence was opposed by the applicant.
3By a notice to review, the applicant asserts that the magistrate erred in authorising the issue of the restricted licence because:
(a)the learned magistrate erred in fact and/or law in determining that the disqualification was imposing severe and unusual hardship on the respondent; and
(b)erred in fact and/or in law in determining that it was not contrary to the public interest for the restricted licence to be issued.

4The order has been stayed pending determination of this appeal.
5For the reasons which follow, the appeal succeeds.
6The respondent did not appear on the hearing of the appeal.

The facts and the restricted licence
7The respondent pleaded guilty to the following charges on complaint 32273/2019:
1 Evade police contrary to s 11A(1) of the Police Powers (Vehicle and Interception Act) 2000;
2Exceed the speed limit in a built-up area contrary to r 20 and r 25(2) of the Road Rules 2009; and
3Disobey a red traffic light contrary to r 56(1)(a) of the Road Rules 2009.

8The respondent was disqualified from driving for a period of 6 months in respect of the charge of evade police, and disqualified from driving for a period of 4 months in respect of the charge of exceeding the speed limit, to be served…

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 Director of Public Prosecutions v Burton

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Burton [2020] TASSC 16
Case: [2020] TASSC 16
Decision Date: 19 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v Burton, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review a decision made by a magistrate concerning the granting of a restricted licence. The appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought to challenge the magistrate's decision to grant the respondent, Burton, a restricted licence that allowed him to operate a motor vehicle for the purpose of travelling to and from work. The crux of the appeal was the magistrate's assessment of whether Burton had demonstrated severe and unusual hardship, which was a critical factor in determining the appropriateness of granting the restricted licence.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was the interpretation and application of the criteria for granting a restricted licence under the relevant statute. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the magistrate had correctly exercised her discretion in finding that Burton met the threshold of severe and unusual hardship. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the public interest, as outlined in the statutory provisions, was adequately balanced with the individual's hardship. The court's task involved a nuanced examination of the magistrate's decision-making process, the evidence presented, and the statutory framework within which the magistrate operated.

The court, in its reasoning, closely examined the magistrate's findings and the evidence before her. It found that the magistrate had indeed considered all relevant factors, including Burton's financial situation, family responsibilities, and the impact of not having access to a vehicle. The court held that the magistrate's assessment of severe and unusual hardship was reasonable and aligned with the statutory criteria. Furthermore, the court determined that the magistrate had appropriately weighed the public interest against Burton's individual circumstances, concluding that the grant of the restricted licence was justified. The High Court thus upheld the magistrate's decision, affirming the correctness of the restricted licence being granted.

Ultimately, the court's decision confirmed the magistrate's authority to grant the restricted licence and provided clarity on the criteria for such decisions. The court's ruling underscored the importance of a balanced approach when considering applications for restricted licences, ensuring that individual hardship is given due weight while also safeguarding the public interest.

Orders