Gardner v Police - [2023] SASC 95

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
GARDNER v POLICE
[2023] SASC 95
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stein
28 June 2023
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
MAGISTRATES - HEARING - ADJOURNMENT AND REMAND
MAGISTRATES - HEARING - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND NATURAL JUSTICE
The appellant was charged with drive unregistered motor vehicle on a road contrary to s 91(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA); drive uninsured motor vehicle on a road contrary to s 102(1) of the Act; and drive motor vehicle with incorrect number on the number plate contrary to s 47D(1)(a) of the Act. At trial, the Magistrate found all charges proved and, in sentencing did not record a conviction and imposed a nominal fine of $20.
The appellant appealed on the grounds that the Magistrate erred in refusing to allow an adjournment of the trial, failed to accord natural justice and procedural fairness, denied "requisite practice and procedure", denied obligations under the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) and the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) that the sentence was indicative of triviality and the prosecution was "founded on the negligence of executive government".
Held:
1. The appellant failed to make out any ground of appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) ss 91(5), 102(1), 47D(1)(a); Evidence Act 1929 (SA); Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA), referred to.
Patel v Police [2022] SASC 83; Maider v Dancis (1985) 39 SASR 136; Blinco v Speer [1999] SASC 211; Alexandroaia v R (1995) 81 A Crim R 286; Crowther v Police [2008] SASC 302; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, considered.

GARDNER v POLICE
[2023] SASC 95
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
STEIN J.
Background

On 20 January 2022, Mr Gardner was stopped by police on Main Road in Willunga while driving a Holden station wagon with Queensland number plates. The police officer conducted checks and determined that the number plates attached to the Holden station wagon were allocated to a different vehicle. The registration of the Holden station wagon had expired in October 2020. When asked questions, Mr Gardner admitted the motor vehicle was not registered in South Australia and said it was registered with a website called Common Law Earth. Mr Gardner told the police officer he was unable to register the motor vehicle because of unpaid fines; if he had his South Australian number plates on the vehicle, police would pull him over all the time, and admitted he changed the number plates to disguise the vehicle. He said he did so to work and support his family.
Mr Gardner was charged with drive an unregistered vehicle on a road contrary to s 91(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) (“Motor Vehicles Act”), drive uninsured motor vehicle on a road contrary to s 102(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and drive a motor vehicle with incorrect number on a number plate contrary to s 47D(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles…

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 [2023] SASC 95
Case: [2023] SASC 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gardner v Police involved an appeal against a conviction made by the District Court of South Australia. The appellant, Gardner, contested the decision made by the Magistrate in the Magistrates Court, asserting various grounds for appeal. These grounds included alleged denials of obligations under the Evidence Act and the Joint Criminal Rules, a claim that the prosecution was based on the negligence of the executive government, and dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed. The appellant sought to overturn the conviction and sentence, arguing that the Magistrate had erred in various respects.

The court was required to examine whether the Magistrate's decision to convict the appellant was legally sound. This involved assessing whether the Magistrate correctly applied the Evidence Act and the Joint Criminal Rules, and whether the conviction was supported by the evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to determine if the appellant's claims regarding the prosecution's foundation and the sentence imposed were valid grounds for appeal.

The court found that none of the grounds raised by the appellant provided a valid basis for overturning the conviction. Grounds 5 and 6, concerning the Evidence Act and the Joint Criminal Rules, were dismissed as there was no evidence of non-compliance with these legal frameworks. Ground 7, related to the sentence, was deemed misconceived as it was not pertinent to the appeal against conviction. Ground 8, which alleged negligence by the executive government, was also dismissed as it lacked supporting material and did not relate to the reasons for the conviction. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and indicated it would consider costs associated with the appeal process in subsequent proceedings. The appellant's arguments failed to establish any legal basis for overturning the conviction, and the Magistrate's decision was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

No submissions were put concerning appeal ground 5, that the Magistrate denied obligations under the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (“Evidence Act”), or appeal ground 6, that the Magistrate denied the requirements of the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) (“Rules”). There was no suggestion of any failure to comply with the Evidence Act, the rules of evidence or the Rules. I dismiss grounds 5 and 6 of the notice of appeal. Appeal ground 7, based on the sentence imposed by the Magistrate, is misconceived in an appeal against conviction. Any leniency in sentence does not necessarily relate to the seriousness of the offence, provide any justification for the assertion the offence was “vexatious” or demonstrate any error by the Magistrate in convicting the appellant. I dismiss ground 7 of the notice of appeal. No submissions were put on appeal ground 8, that the prosecution was founded on the negligence of executive government. There was no material to support that ground and it did not relate to any aspect of the Magistrate’s reasons for convicting the appellant. I dismiss ground 8 of the notice of appeal. Orders I dismiss the appeal. I will hear the parties in relation to costs.

Decision

Reasons for decision

STEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.