Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Collins

Edwards v Collins

Case [2018] WASC 119 19 April 2018

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Driving Offences

Disqualification Period

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   EDWARDS -v- COLLINS [2018] WASC 119
CORAM:   JENKINS J
HEARD:   7 AUGUST 2017
DELIVERED          :   19 APRIL 2018
PUBLISHED           :   19 APRIL 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1009 of 2017
BETWEEN:   LEIGH ANDREW EDWARDS
Appellant
AND
MARTIN PAUL COLLINS
First Respondent
DANIEL MOHAMMAD HASAN SIMPSON
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   JP W HEARMAN
File Number            :   DB 207 of 2015
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE T WATT
File Number            :   AL 2032 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Conviction for driving whilst disqualified - Appellant held a valid driver's licence at time of driving - Parties relied on incorrect information provided by justice of the peace - Miscarriage of justice

Criminal law - Appeal - Conviction for driving whilst disqualified - Driving occurred during period of disqualification imposed as part of the sentence for another driving offence which is to be set aside - Period of disqualification valid and enforceable at time of offence and conviction - No miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 11, s 12, s 14
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive ) Act 2008 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 15, s 49(1)(a), s 49(1)(c), s 49(3)(c), s 51, s 75, s 97
Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (WA), s 11
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 37, s 103, s 105

Result:

Appeal allowed, in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr D S Hunter
First Respondent	:	Mr G J Stockton
Second Respondent	:	Mr G J Stockton

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid (WA)
First Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bardsley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 251
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220; [1935] ALR 304
Dreja v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 151
Lynch v Hargrave [1971] VR 99
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Re Culleton [No 2] [2017] HCA 4
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129
Wimbridge v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196

JENKINS J:

This is an appeal against the appellant's convictions in the Albany Magistrates Court on 17 September 2015 (the Milpara conviction) and in the Donnybrook Magistrates Court on 14 December 2015 (the Mumbalup conviction).[1] Each conviction is for the offence of driving whilst not being authorised to do so and when the offender's licence is disqualified contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (RTA) s 49(1)(a) and s 49(3)(c).
[1] I will refer to the relevant charges, convictions and sentences by the name of the place where the relevant offences were said to have occurred.

Ground of appeal

The proposed ground of appeal is:
The convictions of the appellant for two offences of driving under suspension ... are convictions which…

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 Edwards v Collins

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Collins [2018] WASC 119
Case: [2018] WASC 119
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Edwards v Collins, the appellant, Edwards, sought to appeal his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. Edwards was found to be driving a motor vehicle despite a prior disqualification period that had been imposed as part of a sentence for another driving offence. The appeal hinged on the contention that Edwards held a valid driver's licence at the time of the driving, and both parties relied on incorrect information provided by a justice of the peace. The crux of the legal issue was whether the appellant's conviction for driving whilst disqualified constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's driving during a disqualification period constituted a valid conviction, considering the invalidity of the prior offence that led to the disqualification. The court also had to assess whether the reliance on incorrect information by the justice of the peace resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that his conviction should be overturned due to the invalidity of the prior offence, which led to the disqualification period. Conversely, the respondent argued that the disqualification period was valid and enforceable at the time of the offence, and therefore, the conviction was justified.

The court concluded that the disqualification period was valid and enforceable at the time of the offence, despite the invalidity of the prior offence that led to the disqualification. The court further found that there was no miscarriage of justice as the appellant was still disqualified from driving during the relevant period. The reliance on incorrect information did not affect the validity of the disqualification period or the conviction. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for driving whilst disqualified was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction for driving whilst disqualified was to remain in effect. The court's decision affirmed the validity of the disqualification period and the conviction, and no miscarriage of justice was found.

Orders