FORBES -v- DURANT [1999] WASCA 85
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 85 | |
| 25/06/1999 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1039/1999 | 14 JUNE 1999 | |
| Coram: | McKECHNIE J | 14/06/99 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowedSuspension reduced | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARK DAVID ANTHONY FORBES CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL DURANT |
Catchwords: | Road traffic Reckless driving Suspension of motor driver's licence for two years Whether tariff manifestly excessive |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act (WA) 1974 s 61 |
Case References: | Demarte v Fox, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980084; 26 February 1998 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Mullane v Smith, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7946; 10 November 1989 Nye v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6669, 6 April 1987 Ogilvie v Mills, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940113; 2 March 1994 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Chan v R (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Chappell v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980094; 4 March 1998 Davis v Commissioner of Police (1990) 12 MVR 297 Reynolds v Wilkinson (1948) 51 WALR 17 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL DURANT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Road traffic - Reckless driving - Suspension of motor driver's licence for two years - Whether tariff manifestly excessive
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act(WA) 1974 s 61
Result:
Appeal allowed
- Suspension reduced
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr A W Pass
Respondent : Mr M G Lundberg
Solicitors:
Appellant : Frank Unmack & Cullen
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Demarte v Fox, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980084; 26 February 1998
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mullane v Smith, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7946; 10 November 1989
Nye v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6669, 6 April 1987
Ogilvie v Mills, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940113; 2 March 1994
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387
Case(s) also cited:
Chan v R (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Chappell v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980094; 4 March 1998
Davis v Commissioner of Police (1990) 12 MVR 297
Reynolds v Wilkinson (1948) 51 WALR 17
(Page 3)
- McKECHNIE J:
Introduction
1 The applicant is an 18-year-old young man who, on 21 February 1999, did what young men sometimes do. He had just put a new engine in his car and, with two friends, took it out for a spin. What he did, however, was to travel in Garling Street, O'Connor, which is in a light industrial area, the speed limit of which is 80 kms per hour, at very high speed indeed. He was detected by radar, travelling…
Continue reading Forbes v Durant
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Forbes v Durant [1999] WASCA 85
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Forbes, appealed against a decision to suspend his driver's licence for two years for reckless driving. The respondent, Durant, was the prosecutor, acting on behalf of the state. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant state, which was required to determine whether the penalty imposed was excessive. The court was asked to consider whether the two-year suspension was a manifest excess of the tribunal's discretion under the Road Traffic Act. The appeal hinged on whether the penalty was disproportionate to the offence committed.
The court examined the principles guiding the imposition of penalties for traffic offences and noted the importance of proportionality and the need to deter future misconduct. It considered the nature of the reckless driving, the absence of aggravating factors, and the appellant's previous driving record. The tribunal had given weight to the appellant's clean driving history, but the court observed that this factor alone did not justify the length of the suspension. The court concluded that a two-year suspension was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, taking into account the need for deterrence and the potential impact on the appellant's livelihood.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the two-year suspension was indeed a manifest excess of the tribunal's discretion. It reduced the suspension to a term that it considered appropriate, balancing the need for deterrence with the principle of proportionality. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The final orders of the court reflected its determination that the original penalty was not justified and set a more proportionate penalty.
The court examined the principles guiding the imposition of penalties for traffic offences and noted the importance of proportionality and the need to deter future misconduct. It considered the nature of the reckless driving, the absence of aggravating factors, and the appellant's previous driving record. The tribunal had given weight to the appellant's clean driving history, but the court observed that this factor alone did not justify the length of the suspension. The court concluded that a two-year suspension was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, taking into account the need for deterrence and the potential impact on the appellant's livelihood.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the two-year suspension was indeed a manifest excess of the tribunal's discretion. It reduced the suspension to a term that it considered appropriate, balancing the need for deterrence with the principle of proportionality. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The final orders of the court reflected its determination that the original penalty was not justified and set a more proportionate penalty.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowedSuspension reduced
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.