DODO-BALU -v- HODGSON [2015] WASC 222

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 222
Case No:	SJA:1077/2014	Heard:	9 JUNE 2015
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	9/06/15
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LUFUENDE DODO-BALU PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Contravening traffic control signal Appellant convicted in his absence Appeal conceded Miscarriage of justice Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9(2) Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55 Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 40(2)
Case References:	Grover v Scott [2010] WASCA 164 Sharma v Hodgson [2012] WASC 433 Wimbridge v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : DODO-BALU -v- HODGSON [2015] WASC 222 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 9 JUNE 2015 DELIVERED : 9 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : SJA 1077 of 2014 BETWEEN : LUFUENDE DODO-BALU

Applicant

AND

PAUL RICHARD HODGSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G CICCHINI

File No : PE 71249 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Contravening traffic control signal - Appellant convicted in his absence - Appeal conceded - Miscarriage of justice - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9(2)

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 40(2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr W A Fitt

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Grover v Scott [2010] WASCA 164
Sharma v Hodgson [2012] WASC 433
Wimbridge v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196

PRITCHARD J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 9 June 2015 and has been edited from the transcript)

1 By prosecution notice dated 17 March 2014, Mr Dodo-Balu was charged with driving contrary to reg 40(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). It was alleged that, on 28 January 2014, Mr Dodo-Balu failed to comply with a traffic control signal. The matter was listed for hearing in the Magistrates Court on 4 April 2014. Mr Dodo-Balu failed to attend.

2 Section 55(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) provides that:

(2) If on the court date the court is satisfied that the accused has been served under this Part with the prosecution notice containing the charge and a court hearing notice, or an approved notice, notifying the accused of that date and that the court may deal with the charge in the accused’s absence if the accused does not appear on that date, the court may -

...

(b) hear and determine the charge in the accused’s absence.

3 Section 55(4)(b) of the Act allows the magistrate to 'take as proved any allegation in the prosecution notice containing the charge that…

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 Dodo-Balu v Hodgson

Details

AGLC: Dodo-Balu v Hodgson [2015] WASC 222
Case: [2015] WASC 222
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dodo-Balu v Hodgson, the appellant, Dodo-Balu, was convicted in his absence of contravening a traffic control signal. Dodo-Balu appealed against the conviction, conceding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The appeal hinged on the specific circumstances of the case, focusing on whether the conviction was justified given the particular facts presented.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conviction of Dodo-Balu in his absence was appropriate and whether it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court needed to determine if the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether Dodo-Balu's absence during the trial affected the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to consider the broader implications of convicting someone in their absence and the potential for injustice in such circumstances.

The court found that the conviction of Dodo-Balu in his absence was indeed a miscarriage of justice. The evidence presented was not robust enough to support the conviction without the opportunity for Dodo-Balu to defend himself. The court highlighted that the absence of the accused from the trial undermined the fundamental fairness of the legal process, leading to an unjust outcome. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

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.