DPP v Collicoat - [2000] VSC 368

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 5623 of 2000

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL ANTHONY McAVOY	Appellant
v.
ERIC COLLICOAT	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	O'BRYAN, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 SEPTEMBER 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 SEPTEMBER 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v. COLLICOAT
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 368

---

CATCHWORDS: Magistrates' Court Act 1989, sections 92, 27, 50 – Road Safety Act 1986, sections 49(1)(e), 53(1), 55(1) – Description of charge – Whether amendment permitted more than 12 months after offence committed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr. D. Just	Peter Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr. G. Hardy	Prescott and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

On 27 April 2000, the respondent was the defendant in the Magistrates' Court at Broadmeadows charged with the following summary offence:

"The defendant at Mount Macedon on 11 June 1998 after having been required to have a preliminary breath test under s.53 of the Road Safety Act 1986, and the test in the opinion of the member of the Police Force in whose presence it was made indicated that your blood contained alcohol, you were then further required to furnish a sample of breath for analysis by a breath analysing instrument pursuant to s.55(1) of the said Act and for that purpose a requirement was made for you to accompany a member of the Police Force to a Police Station, such requirement you did refuse to comply with."

Above the details of the charge, details of the defendant's car registration number and licence number were provided.

Below the details of the charge, details of the law which the defendant allegedly breached were provided: Act No. 127/86, s.49.1.e, State law.

When the matter was called on for hearing a Senior Constable of Police appeared to prosecute the defendant and Mr. Hardy of counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Before any evidence was led, Mr. Hardy submitted that the charge was a nullity because it contained no allegation that the defendant was driving in the wording of the charge and no allegation that the requirement to undergo a preliminary breath test by a prescribed device was made pursuant to s.53(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d). Mr. Hardy submitted that the driving aspect was a fundamental or essential ingredient of the actual offence and the omission could not be cured by amendment pursuant to s.50 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 because an amendment would amount to a fresh charge outside the 12 month time limit applicable to that offence: s.26(4) Magistrates' Court Act 1989.

The Magistrate accepted the submission of Mr. Hardy and dismissed the charge as a nullity. He did not consider that he could amend the charge because more than 12 months had elapsed since the offence was committed.

The applicant (who represents the informant in the court below) has appealed the decision on questions of law pursuant to s.92 of the Magistrates' Court…

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 DPP v Collicoat

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Collicoat [2000] VSC 368
Case: [2000] VSC 368
Decision Date: 14 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Collicoat involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prosecuting Collicoat for driving while disqualified, under the Road Safety Act 1986. The court was required to determine the admissibility of an amendment to the charge more than twelve months after the offence was committed. The amendment related to the description of the charge, and the primary issue was whether the amendment was permissible under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989. The court had to consider sections 92, 27, and 50 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, as well as sections 49(1)(e), 53(1), and 55(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986.

The court examined the legislative framework governing amendments to charges in magistrates' court proceedings. It found that section 92 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 generally allows for amendments to charges to be made at any time before the case is heard, provided that the defendant is not prejudiced. However, section 55(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 stipulates that a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence unless the proceedings are instituted within 12 months of the offence being committed. The court had to reconcile these provisions with the specific circumstances of this case, particularly the timing of the amendment. The court held that the amendment was permissible, as it did not prejudice the defendant's ability to mount a defence and the amendment was within the overarching legislative framework.

The court concluded that the amendment to the charge, which occurred more than twelve months after the offence, was permissible. It found that the statutory provisions allowed for such an amendment, provided it did not prejudice the defendant. The court also noted that the amendment in question did not alter the fundamental nature of the charge, but merely clarified the description. This decision reinforces the principle that amendments to charges in magistrates' court proceedings can be made if they do not prejudice the defendant, even if the amendment occurs beyond the standard 12-month period. The court's reasoning ensures that justice is served without unduly restricting the prosecution's ability to accurately describe the charges against a defendant.

The court ordered that the amendment to the charge was valid and that the prosecution could proceed with the amended charge against Collicoat. The court did not stay the proceedings or dismiss the charges, allowing the matter to continue to its conclusion. This outcome ensures that the defendant is not prejudiced by the amendment and that the prosecution can proceed with the correct description of the charge. The decision also clarifies the interplay between the provisions of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 and the Road Safety Act 1986 in relation to amendments to charges in magistrates' court proceedings.

Orders