Graham v Police - [2001] SASC 93

GRAHAM v THE POLICE
[2001] SASC 93
Magistrates Appeal
Criminal
1................ Gray J: This is an appeal against conviction.
Background
2 The appellant, Ms Graham was charged with offences against the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The complaint was in the following terms:

“On the 6th day of February, 2000 at Adelaide in the said State drove a vehicle namely a motor vehicle on a road namely Grenfell Street in a manner which was dangerous to the public.
Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961.
On the 6th day of February, 2000 at Adelaide in the said State drove a vehicle namely a motor vehicle on a road namely Grenfell Street without due care.
Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961."

3      Ms Graham pleaded guilty to the charge of driving without due care. The trial for driving in a manner dangerous to the public proceeded before the learned magistrate, Mr Harris SM (“the magistrate”). Ms Graham was convicted. The magistrate disqualified her from driving for six months and fined her $400.00.[1]
[1] Additionally the magistrate ordered Ms Graham to pay court fees of $80, levy of $28, prosecution    costs of $220 and witness fees of $200.
4      Ms Graham appeals on the following grounds:
“-...... The finding of guilt was contrary to the evidence and contrary to the weight of evidence.
- .... The learned magistrate erred in that the evidence of the appellant and the prosecution witness Gutschke was consistent with innocence and consistent with aspects of the evidence of the prosecution witness Bowden.
-..... The learned magistrate erred in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witness Bowden given the nature and quality of her evidence, material inconsistencies therein and her demeanour.
-..... The learned magistrate erred in determining that the prosecution witness Gutschke and the appellant must have collaborated when:
- ..... there was not suggestion of the same at any stage of the trial;

- the prosecution witness Gutschke was presented as a
witness of truth and reliability.

-....... The learned magistrate erred in the assessment of the appellant’s evidence in the light of her good character.”

Dangerous Driving
5 S. 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) provides as follows:
“Reckless and dangerous driving
46. (1) A person must not drive a vehicle recklessly or at a speed
or in a manner which is dangerous to the public.
...
(2) In considering whether an offence has been committed under this section, the court must have regard to —

(a).... the nature, condition and use of the road on which the offence is alleged to have been committed; and

(b)the amount of traffic on the road at the time of the offence;

and
(c).... the amount of traffic which might reasonably be expected to enter the road from other roads and places; and

. (d) all other relevant circumstances, whether of the same nature as those mentioned or not.”

An Objective Assessment

6 The conduct of Ms Graham is to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Graham v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] SASC 93
Decision Date: 3 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Graham v Police [2001] SASC 93 is an appeal against conviction, heard by Bright J. The appellant, Ms Graham, had been charged under the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) with driving without due care and driving in a manner dangerous to the public. She pleaded guilty to the former and was convicted of the latter by a magistrate, who disqualified her from driving for six months and fined her $400. Ms Graham appealed on the grounds that the magistrate had erred in his findings, but Bright J dismissed the appeal.

The legal issues considered were whether Ms Graham’s driving was dangerous to the public, and whether the magistrate had properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and his conclusions from that assessment. Bright J found that an objective assessment of Ms Graham’s driving showed that it was dangerous to the public, as it exposed pedestrians and Ms Graham herself to real danger. The magistrate’s assessment of the witnesses was also found to be sound, with his reasoning thorough and his conclusions open on the evidence. Ms Graham’s argument that the magistrate had erred in finding that she and her passenger had colluded was also rejected, as the magistrate had not found that they had colluded, but had only found their evidence to be suggestive of collaboration. Finally, Bright J found that the magistrate had properly considered Ms Graham’s good character as a mitigating factor, but had correctly found that it could not outweigh the evidence of her guilt.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders