Gardner v Police - [2024] SASCA 10

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
GARDNER v POLICE
[2024] SASCA 10
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Justice Doyle, the Honourable Justice Bleby and the Honourable Justice David)
14 February 2024
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Application for leave to appeal from a decision of a single judge of this Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal from findings of guilt in the Magistrates Court for breaches of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA).
On 20 January 2022, the applicant was stopped by police while driving a Holden station wagon with Queensland number plates. The police officer conducted checks and determined that the number plates were allocated to a different vehicle and that the registration of the Holden station wagon had expired in October 2020. The applicant admitted that he had been unable to register the motor vehicle because of unpaid speeding fines; and that he had changed the number plates to disguise the vehicle. He said that he had continued to drive so as to work and support his family. He sought to defend the charges on the basis that he was not given a chance to contest his earlier speeding fines.
The applicant was found guilty of driving an unregistered vehicle contrary to s 9(1) of the MVA, driving an uninsured motor vehicle contrary to s 102(1) of the MVA and driving a motor vehicle with an incorrect number plate contrary to s 47D(1)(a) of the MVA.
Held, per the court:
1. The applicant’s proposed grounds of appear are entirely without merit.
2. The applications for an adjournment, a case stated and leave to appeal are refused.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) ss 9, 47D, 102, referred to.

GARDNER v POLICE
[2024] SASCA 10
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Doyle, Bleby and David JJA

THE COURT (ex tempore): The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a single judge of this Court dismissing his appeal from findings of guilt in the Magistrates Court for breaches of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) (MVA).[1]
[1] Gardner v Police [2023] SASC 95.
Before addressing the application for leave to appeal, it is necessary to address the applicant’s applications for an adjournment, and for the Court to state a case. The essence of the case the applicant seeks to have stated is that the State of South Australia was unlawfully established. There is no merit at all in the issues sought to be raised, and so the application for a case stated should be refused. No proper basis for an adjournment has been made out, and so that application should also be refused.
The applicant seeks a short extension of the time for filing his application for leave to appeal. As the application is not contested, and the short delay is explicable, the application for an extension of time will be…

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 Gardner v Police

Details

AGLC: Gardner v Police [2024] SASCA 10
Case: [2024] SASCA 10
Decision Date: 14 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Doyle, Bleby and David JJ, heard an appeal concerning the procedural requirements for appeals from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court. The appeal arose from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appellant had complied with the procedural requirements of the *Magistrates Court Act 1991* (SA) and the *Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006* (SA) in lodging their appeal. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the appeal was properly before it, given the nature of the application made to the Magistrates Court and the subsequent steps taken by the appellant.

The Court reasoned that the *Magistrates Court Act 1991* (SA) and the *Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006* (SA) prescribe specific pathways for appeals from the Magistrates Court. The nature of the application made in the Magistrates Court dictates the appropriate avenue for appeal to the Supreme Court. In this instance, the appellant had sought to appeal a decision that was not a final judgment but rather an interlocutory order. The Court found that the appellant had not followed the correct procedure for appealing such an order, which required specific leave from the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the Full Court held that the appeal was not properly before it and ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders