Hady-Ali v Police - [2015] SASC 84

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
HADY-ALI v POLICE
[2015] SASC 84
Judgment of The Honourable Auxiliary Justice Duggan
4 June 2015
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - EXCEEDING PRESCRIBED SPEED LIMITS
Appellant pleaded guilty to driving at a speed exceeding the speed limit - appellant appeals against Magistrate's refusal to order that the demerit points incurred be reduced - whether offence was trifling - whether any other proper cause existed to reduce the demerit points.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 98B(4), referred to.
Hearn v McCann (1982) 29 SASR 448; Vanderbergh v Police [2005] SASC 197; Siviour-Ashman v Police (2003) 85 SASR 23; Holness v Police [2010] SASC 314; Black v Police [2009] SASC 115; Dycer v Police [2010] SASC 241; Cirillo v Police [2010] SASC 293; Police v Federuzzi [2008] SASC 104; Shillabeer v Linnane (1979) 22 SASR 382, considered.

HADY-ALI v POLICE
[2015] SASC 84
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

DUGGAN AJ: The appellant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on the South-Eastern Freeway at a speed in excess of the speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour. It was alleged in the complaint that the offence took place on 18 August 2014 at Mt Barker. It was further alleged that the vehicle was being driven at approximately 149 kilometres per hour.
The appellant was fined $600 and ordered to pay the victims of crime levy and prosecution costs. He also incurred the demerit points applicable to the offence.
The appellant was unrepresented at the hearing before the Magistrate and on the hearing of the appeal. It is clear that he prepared the notice of appeal without legal assistance.
It is apparent from the transcript of the lower court proceedings that the appellant applied for an order that no demerit points be incurred. He gave evidence on the hearing of the application and stated that the reason for speeding was due to a faulty speedometer. He advised the court that the speedometer had been tested by an auto electrician and that it was found to be faulty.
When cross-examined by the police prosecutor the appellant agreed that he told the police when he was stopped that his sister-in-law, who was travelling with him, was being taken to hospital. However he said that she no longer wished to go to the hospital after this incident and she told him not to worry about it. He said nothing to the police about a faulty speedometer.
After hearing the appellant’s evidence the Magistrate made the following ruling:
Mr Hady-Ali I have considered your application. What you have told me is your speedometer on your car is not working or if it was working it was working only intermittently. At one stage it was spiking so it showed a particular speed and then it would drop down again and continue on that…

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 Hady-Ali 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: [2015] SASC 84
Decision Date: 4 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hady-Ali v Police, the appellant, Hady-Ali, was charged with exceeding the prescribed speed limit while driving. After pleading guilty, Hady-Ali appealed against the Magistrate's refusal to reduce the demerit points incurred from the offence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, which reviewed the decision made by the Magistrate regarding the demerit points.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the offence constituted a trifling matter, which would warrant a reduction in the demerit points, or whether there was any other proper cause to reduce the points. The court needed to consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it to determine if the Magistrate's decision was appropriate.

The court found that the offence of exceeding the speed limit, while serious, did not necessarily constitute a trifling matter, and there were no other proper causes to reduce the demerit points. The court upheld the Magistrate's decision, affirming that the demerit points should not be reduced. The appellant's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case reinforces the importance of considering the severity of traffic offences and the need for consistency in the application of demerit points. The court's ruling emphasises that not all traffic offences are trifling, and reducing demerit points should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Orders