Green v Webb - [2006] WASC 71

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: GREEN -v- WEBB [2006] WASC 71

CORAM: MCKECHNIE J

HEARD: 4 APRIL 2006

DELIVERED : 21 APRIL 2006

FILE NO/S: SJA 1015 of 2006

BETWEEN: ANDREW PETER GREEN
Appellant
AND
ALISON PATRICIA WEBB
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY
File No  :RO 1249 of 2006

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Cancellation of extraordinary driver's licence - Consideration of the circumstances of the case - Adequacy of punishment - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Simon Watters
Respondent: Ms K Y Loh

Solicitors:

Appellant: Thames Legal
Respondent: State Solicitor's Office

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

Pasic v The Police [2001] WASCA 127
Samuels v The State of Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473
Stride v Powell [1982] WAR 336

Case(s) also cited:

Hemphill v Ninyett (1992) 16 MVR 86
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 409
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Re the State of Western Australia; Ex parte Worswick [2005] WASCA 187
Traffic Board v Smith, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950394; 25 July 1995

MCKECHNIE J: In the late afternoon of New Year's Eve 2004 the appellant was driving home from work on Safety Bay Road when a speed camera detected that he was travelling 20 kilometres above the speed limit. At the time the appellant was the holder of an extraordinary driver's licence. He appeared in the Rockingham Magistrates Court on 14 February 2006 and pleaded guilty to breaching the conditions of his extraordinary driver's licence.
Upon conviction the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 77(2) applied so that the Court before which he was convicted "… shall cancel the extraordinary licence unless the court thinks that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a fine would be an adequate punishment for the offence".
The appellant has an appalling traffic record. The Magistrate took a very dim view of the appellant's offending in light of his record, telling the appellant to look in the mirror and that he had betrayed the trust of his employer and let his family down. He fined the appellant $500 and cancelled the extraordinary licence.
On 21 March 2006, after hearing counsel for the appellant, I ordered that the application for leave to appeal and the appeal be heard together on 4 April 2006. I ordered a pre‑sentence report and gave leave to the appellant to file an affidavit detailing his personal circumstances.
The application for leave to appeal is on the single ground as follows:
"The learned Magistrate erred in law and fact when he cancelled the Appellant's extraordinary drivers licence:
Particulars
a.the decision to cancel was based upon specific error, namely a failure to consider properly or at all the special circumstances of the case itself, together with the…

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 Green v Webb

Details

AGLC: Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71
Case: [2006] WASC 71
Decision Date: 21 APRIL 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Green v Webb, the parties were Green, the appellant, and Webb, the respondent. The dispute arose from the respondent's extraordinary driver's licence being cancelled. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant contested the cancellation, arguing that the punishment was inadequate given the circumstances of the case. The court was required to determine whether the punishment was proportionate to the offence and whether there were any new principles that needed to be considered.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the respondent's driving history and the circumstances of the offence. The court noted that the respondent had a history of driving offences and that the current offence was a serious one. The court also considered the adequacy of the punishment and whether it was proportionate to the offence. The court found that the punishment was adequate and that there were no new principles that needed to be considered.

The court concluded that the punishment was proportionate to the offence and that the cancellation of the respondent's extraordinary driver's licence was justified. The court found that the respondent's driving history and the circumstances of the offence warranted a severe punishment, and that the cancellation of the licence was an appropriate response. The court also noted that there were no new principles that needed to be considered in this case.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision to cancel the respondent's extraordinary driver's licence. The court found that the punishment was proportionate to the offence and that there were no new principles that needed to be considered. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the case.

Orders