Grover v Scott - [2010] WASCA 164

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: GROVER -v- SCOTT [2010] WASCA 164

CORAM: McLURE P
BUSS JA
JENKINS J

HEARD: 22 APRIL 2010

DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2010

FILE NO/S: CACR 185 of 2009

BETWEEN: RAVI GROVER
Appellant
AND
MARCUS ASHLEY SCOTT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :McKECHNIE J
File No  :SJA 1038 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against dismissal of single judge appeal - Extension of time within which to appeal - Driving a motor vehicle in a school zone during the school zone period at a speed in excess of 40 km per hour - Adequacy of school zone signs

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 10
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55, s 71, s 72
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), r 60, r 63
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 98A
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), s 11(6)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

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

Hands v Baker [2009] WASC 46
Lancaster v The Queen [1989] WAR 83
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

McLURE P: I agree with Jenkins J.
BUSS JA: I agree with Jenkins J.
JENKINS J: The appellant appeals against the decision of a single judge (McKechnie J) to dismiss his appeal against a refusal of a magistrate to set aside his conviction in the Magistrates Court for driving a motor vehicle in a school zone during a school zone period in excess of 40 km per hour, namely 55 km per hour.

Grounds of appeal

The appellant's grounds of appeal are:
1.Radar Gun used was hand held.
2.Apology was not accepted.
3.Inadequate speed and time signage in the school zone area concerned.
4.True conversation between the parties not reflected in Statement of facts by the police.
5.The Matter went to Perth Magistrates court and was agreed to be set aside for a later hearing. The Magistrate did not re‑list the matter for a hearing.
6.Sworn Evidence was not accepted in the court and an opportunity to get further legal opinion or defence was not provided.
7.The other party was not present in the court and the Magistrate acted on behalf of the Police.
8.Appeal Notice SJA 1038 / 2009 filed at the Supreme Court, some letters requesting some action also written. Following which a provisional decision was issued while also some action was taken to replace the existing sign and install new school zone signs in the area concerned.
9.Within weeks of installing the new signs a fresh infringement notice with increased penalty was received by me after a long period of time had lapsed from the initial infringement and provisional decision.
10.The Supreme Court did not relist the matter in central office.

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 Grover v Scott

Details

AGLC: Grover v Scott [2010] WASCA 164
Case: [2010] WASCA 164
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Grover v Scott involved an appellant who sought to appeal a conviction by a single judge of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria for driving in a school zone at a speed exceeding 40 km per hour. The appellant argued that the signs delineating the school zone were inadequate, thereby affecting the fairness of the conviction. The appeal against the dismissal of the single judge's decision was heard by a Full Bench of the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around whether the appellant's notice of appeal was filed within the requisite time frame, and if the school zone signs were adequate to inform drivers of the school zone's boundaries and operational hours.

The Court of Appeal examined the timeliness of the appellant's appeal, noting that the appellant had filed the notice of appeal beyond the statutory period. The Court assessed whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an extension of time, taking into account the argument that the inadequate signage was a significant factor. The Court also scrutinised the adequacy of the signage and whether it met statutory requirements to effectively inform drivers of the school zone's parameters and operating periods. The Court concluded that the signage was indeed adequate, as it was consistent with the standards prescribed by the relevant legislation.

Upon considering the evidence, the Court of Appeal held that the notice of appeal was not filed within the statutory time limit and that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. Consequently, the appeal against the single judge's decision was dismissed. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for appeals and the necessity for adequate signage in school zones to ensure the fairness of convictions related to traffic offences. The Court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal.

Orders