Edwards v Simpson - [2018] WASCA 177

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   EDWARDS -v- SIMPSON [2018] WASCA 177
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   21 SEPTEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   12 OCTOBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACR 81 of 2018
BETWEEN:   LEIGH ANDREWS EDWARDS
Appellant
AND
DANIEL MOHAMMAD HASAN SIMPSON
MARTIN PAUL COLLINS
Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   JENKINS J
File Number             :   SJA 1009 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Whether correction of sentence by deletion of a driving disqualification order rendered void any subsequent conviction that was dependent on the disqualification order

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 37

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr D S Hunter
Respondents	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid Bunbury
Respondents	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Dreja v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 151
Edwards v Collins [2018] WASC 119
Lawson v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 129

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant was convicted of three driving offences, the second and third of which were offences of driving while suspended from doing so. He appealed against the two convictions for driving while under suspension. The primary judge upheld the appeal in relation to the first conviction for driving while under suspension, but dismissed the appeal concerning the second of these offences.[1]
[1] Edwards v Collins [2018] WASC 119 (primary decision).
The appellant seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal concerning his conviction for the second of the offences of driving while under suspension. For the reasons that follow, there is no merit in the appeal, and leave to appeal must be refused.

The facts

On 27 May 2015, the appellant was convicted before two justices of the peace (JP) in the Magistrates Court at Collie (the Collie conviction) upon his pleas of guilty, on charges to the effect that on 25 February 2015 he drove a vehicle on a road:
i.that bore numbers plates other than the ones issued for that vehicle contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (RTA) s 97(2)(f)(iii); and
ii.while there was not a valid vehicle licence granted or issued for the vehicle as required by the RTA s 15(1), contrary to the RTA s 15(3)(E).
The appellant was fined $100 for each offence. One of the JPs told the appellant that he was not allowed to drive home and 'you will lose your licence for three months under section 51'.[2] This was recorded on the Collie prosecution notice and in police records as a three‑month disqualification order which related to the offence of driving with a false number plate against RTA s 97.
[2] Collie Magistrates Court ts 4, primary decision [12].
On 17 September 2015, the appellant, who was not legally represented, was convicted, on his plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court at Albany, of…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Simpson [2018] WASCA 177
Case: [2018] WASCA 177
Decision Date: 12 OCTOBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by a defendant, Edwards, against his conviction and sentence. The conviction arose from an incident where Edwards was found guilty of driving while disqualified, and the sentence included a driving disqualification order. The appeal focused on the legality of the subsequent conviction that was dependent on the disqualification order being voided by a correction of the original sentence. Simpson, the respondent, argued that the subsequent conviction was valid and not affected by the correction of the original sentence. The court was required to determine whether the correction of the sentence by deleting the driving disqualification order rendered any subsequent conviction that was dependent on that disqualification order void.

The central legal issue was whether the correction of the sentence, which deleted the driving disqualification order, invalidated any subsequent conviction that was predicated on the existence of that disqualification order. The court needed to consider the effect of the correction on the validity of the subsequent conviction and whether the subsequent conviction was independently valid. The court had to balance the principles of finality of judgments with the need to correct errors in sentencing. The court also had to examine whether the subsequent conviction was a separate and independent offence that did not rely on the original disqualification order.

The court held that the correction of the sentence by deleting the driving disqualification order did not render the subsequent conviction void, as the subsequent conviction was a separate and independent offence. The court found that the subsequent conviction was valid as it was based on the defendant's conduct at the time of the offence and not on the existence of the original disqualification order. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that each conviction stands on its own merits and is not dependent on the validity of previous sentences or orders. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the defendant, Edwards, be upheld. The court confirmed that the subsequent conviction was valid and not affected by the correction of the original sentence. The court did not grant any relief to the appellant and confirmed the original judgment and sentence.

Orders