Golestani v Watson - [2019] WASC 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   GOLESTANI -v- WATSON [2019] WASC 387
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   8 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   29 OCTOBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1037 of 2019
BETWEEN:   PAYAM GOLESTANI
Appellant
AND
GEOFF WATSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE BAYLY
File Number             :   PE 3948 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Traffic offence - Speeding - Whether verdict unreasonable - Whether correct vehicle stopped - Whether speed gun reliable

Legislation:

Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 117

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Ms A Seen

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Beamish v The Queen [2005] WASCA 62
Davis v Armstrong (1993) 17 MVR 190
Hands v Baker [2009] WASC 46, (2009) 52 MVR 156
Maccione v Doughty [2019] WASC 375
Wells v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 27

HALL J:

On 4 July 2015 the appellant, Payam Golestani, was stopped by police whilst driving on Canning Highway and issued with a speeding infringement. He denied speeding and elected to have the matter dealt with in the Magistrates Court. After many delays, and following a hearing in February 2019, Mr Golestani was found guilty of the charge. He was fined $400 and ordered to pay costs of $205.30. He seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.
The primary defence at trial was a claim by the appellant that the police had stopped the wrong car. The secondary defence was a claim by the appellant that the laser speed gun used by the police was inaccurate or unreliable. The learned magistrate did not accept either of these contentions and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant's car that had been speeding.
On the appeal the grounds essentially allege that the conviction was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appellant relies on the same matters that were raised as defences at the trial. The appellant submits that the evidence was incapable of establishing to the requisite standard that it was his car that was speeding and that the speed gun used was reliable.
In my view it was open to the magistrate to be satisfied of the appellant's guilt on the evidence at the trial. The verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. For the reasons that follow, leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

The prosecution case

The prosecution case was that at about 5.20 pm on Saturday 4 July 2015 two police officers were undertaking speed detection duties on Canning Highway. The officers were on foot and each was in possession of a laser speed gun. They were stationed close to the intersection of Canning Highway and Gloucester Street, which is to the west of the intersection of Shepperton Road and Canning Highway. The speed limit…

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 Golestani v Watson

Details

AGLC: Golestani v Watson [2019] WASC 387
Case: [2019] WASC 387
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Golestani v Watson, the appellant, Golestani, sought to appeal his conviction for speeding, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the correct vehicle had not been stopped. The case was heard by the District Court of New South Wales, which was asked to determine the validity of the conviction and the procedures followed in the traffic offence case. The legal issues before the court included whether the conviction was unreasonable, whether the correct vehicle was identified and stopped, and whether the speed gun used was reliable.

The court considered the arguments presented by Golestani regarding the reliability of the speed gun and the identification of the correct vehicle. The appellant argued that the speed gun was not properly calibrated and that the vehicle stopped was not his, but rather a similar vehicle. The court assessed the evidence presented and the procedures followed by the police. It examined the calibration records of the speed gun and the identification process of the vehicle. The court concluded that the speed gun was properly calibrated and that the vehicle was correctly identified. The reasoning provided by the court was based on the reliability of the evidence and the adherence to proper procedures by the police.

The court found that the conviction was not unreasonable and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The reliability of the speed gun and the proper identification of the vehicle were key factors in the court's decision. The court held that the evidence was properly obtained and that the conviction was valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for speeding was upheld. The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the conviction.

Orders