Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA - [2015] SASC 71

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Permission to Appeal)
HALLS v THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF SA
[2015] SASC 71
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Lovell
15 May 2015
TRAFFIC LAW - LICENSING OF DRIVERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - DISQUALIFICATION, CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENCES
TRAFFIC LAW - LICENSING OF DRIVERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEALS
Appeal under section 43 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) against a decision of the District Court Judge dismissing the appellant's appeal. Appeal on questions of fact. Permission required. Grounds raised by appellant not reasonably arguable.
Held: Permission refused on all grounds.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 148; District Court Act 1991 (SA) ss 42E, 42F, 43, referred to.
Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204, applied.

HALLS v THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF SA
[2015] SASC 71
Civil: Permission to Appeal
LOVELL J.
Overview

On 30 January 2014, Mr Halls (“the appellant”) was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident as a result of which he was conveyed by ambulance to the Royal Adelaide Hospital (“RAH”). What or who caused the accident and what occurred at the RAH was in dispute. Dr Masters, a medical practitioner at the RAH, considered that Mr Halls had suffered an epileptic seizure shortly prior to the accident. Dr Masters gave notification under s 148 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) to the Licence Regulation Unit of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (“the Department”) and expressed the view that if Mr Halls drove a motor vehicle he would likely endanger the public.
As a result of receiving that notification, a delegate of the Registrar sent a letter to Mr Halls dated 10 of February 2014 advising him that his driver’s licence was to be suspended from 18 February 2014.
Mr Halls, in correspondence to the Department, queried the decision. Eventually, on 29 May 2014, Mr Halls applied for a review of his driver’s licence suspension. On 2 September 2014 the Registrar (“the respondent”) conducted a review and confirmed the decision of the delegate. Mr Halls was notified of the Registrar’s decision and reasons in a letter dated 2 September 2014.
Mr Halls appealed the decision of the Registrar. The appeal was heard by a Judge in the District Court of South Australia on two separate occasions in November 2014 and December 2014. On 5 December 2014, the learned Judge hearing the appeal delivered detailed reasons and dismissed the appeal. The learned Judge found that there was “no cogent reason to depart from the conclusions reached by the Registrar”.[1]
[1] Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204 [58].
Mr Halls has filed a notice of appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court from the decision of the District Court Judge dismissing his appeal. Mr Halls requires permission from a single Judge to appeal on questions of fact.[2] In addition to the notice of appeal, Mr Halls filed a summary of argument and a document headed “appellant summary oral presentation for appeal”. Mr Halls has been unrepresented by legal counsel throughout the District Court proceedings.
[2] Section 43(3) District Court Act 1991 (SA).
Submissions on permission
I heard the application for permission on 25 March 2015. Again, Mr Halls represented himself. The notice of appeal was drafted by Mr Halls. It was not always easy to understand the particular ground of appeal that Mr Halls was advancing. I have no doubt that Mr Halls did his best to assist me to understand the point that he was trying to make. However, some of the submissions related to matters that were irrelevant for the determination of this application. I attempted to direct Mr Halls’ attention when he was making submissions to the particular grounds of appeal that he was advancing. In my view, no ground raised a point of law. Accordingly, I will discuss in general terms submissions he made following the grounds of his notice of appeal.
Ground (a) “The District Court did not act within the conduct in section 42E(2)(b) and 42E(3) in The District Court Act 1991.”
The learned Judge conducted the appeal pursuant to the provisions of sections 42(E) and 42(F) of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) (“the Act”). The learned Judge correctly identified that the Court on appeal was to examine the decision of the original decision-maker. Her Honour proceeded to do so.
As argued by Mr Halls, his complaint related to the way the appeal was conducted by the learned Judge rather than a submission that the learned Judge acted outside the terms of the Act. Mr Halls submitted that the learned Judge did not deal with his matter “according to good equity, conscience and the merits of the case”.[3] I deal with those points later in these reasons as they were raised in other grounds of appeal.
[3] T 5 lines 25–30.
I refuse permission on this ground of appeal.
Ground (b) “The Judge erred in allowing a medical witness to comment and state about another expert witness’ written statement, despite both of them knew each other and the key witness being a Junior Urologist having graduated in 2009 (named Dr Leyden).”
Expert evidence was given in the District Court. The learned Judge was entitled to receive other evidence on the hearing of the appeal. There is nothing unusual about the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in this case regarding the expert evidence. It is common for experts to assess or comment upon the opinions of other expert witnesses. This ground of appeal was linked to ground (f) which I will deal with in more detail under that ground of appeal.
I refuse permission on this ground of appeal.
Ground (c) “Video footage questionable as admission into Court evidence as both broke Australian law. One involves the attempted manslaughter of the Appellant under review of the Police currently (Dr Leyden), and the other was a forced confinement denied bail for four days enduring 8 hours or more without food or water which when the appellant went to sleep he had not eaten or drunk water for 17 hours. Police video shows appellant rolling out of bed. This is inadmissible as no such medical evidence is shown and the Judge erred in admitting this Police Cell footage to the Court as it was not legal.”
The main issue before the Registrar and subsequently the learned Judge was whether Mr Halls suffers from the medical condition of epilepsy. The video footage related to a time when Mr Halls was undergoing a “prolonged sleep deprived EEG” that was filmed in accordance with Dr Leyden’s usual practice. Shortly after the commencement of the EEG test, Mr Halls suffered a suspected tonic-clonic seizure, and was subsequently conveyed to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. Dr Leyden gave evidence at the hearing and explained the aspects of the video that gave rise to his opinion that Mr Halls was having a seizure at the time of the EEG testing. Mr Halls was critical at the hearing of the fact that Dr Leyden did not produce the whole of the EEG recording. It was not necessary that he do so for the purpose of his evidence.
The evidence was admissible and it was up to the learned Judge to assess its weight. Dr Leyden gave evidence and the learned Judge found that he was:
a very fair and objective witness who had the qualifications and experience to provide expert evidence in relation to the medical issues in dispute. I have no hesitation in accepting his evidence.[4]
[4] Halls v The Registrar Of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204 [49].
It was open to the learned Judge to make that finding. Other than the fact that Mr Halls did not like the finding made by the learned Judge, there is nothing in this ground of appeal.
In relation to the question of the footage from the police cells, the learned Judge did not consider it necessary to make any specific findings of the disposition of the appeal. The appellant, in his outline and affidavit, made a number of allegations or assertions that related to the medical witnesses which were irrelevant to the matter.
I refuse permission to appeal on this ground.
Ground (d) “Claims made by Appellant against respondent that respondent originated a summons and complaint to Police, resulting in all court documents, computers, camera photocopiers being seized at the Appellant’s home by Police. Respondent claimed illegally that Appellant had somehow submitted evidence to Registrar that she believed did not look right. Subsequently, crown solicitor attempted to dismiss all Appellant’s exhibits during hearing, which was illegal but claimed they were irrelevant. Judge now hearing of this, also believed crown solicitor Ms Halliday to discredit Appellant’s character, and possible inference that the Appellant’s evidence might be tainted.”
The learned Judge dealt with this issue at paragraph 21 of her judgment. A few days before the appeal was to commence, it appears that the police raided Mr Halls’ house and seized various items which included matters relevant to his conduct of his appeal in the District Court. The learned Judge was aware of this and dealt with the issue appropriately. During the hearing it became apparent to the learned Judge that Mr Halls did not have all of the relevant documents. He received a full set of documents before the appeal ended.
Further, it should be noted that Mr Halls gave evidence at the hearing. He had the opportunity to explain his version of events. The learned Judge found his evidence was “unconvincing and I do not accept it”.[5] It is clear from her judgment that the learned Judge made that finding as a result of a number of matters raised in his evidence. She was perfectly entitled to do so.
[5] Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicle of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204 [35].
Mr Halls made submissions to the learned Judge at the end of the case. The fact that the learned Judge rejected his arguments does not of itself amount to an error.
I refuse permission to appeal on this ground.
Ground (e) “Judge did not give the same opportunity to the Appellant as she did the Respondent. Appellant complained that the respondent was given the entire day on Monday 01 December 2014 to exam appellant in relation to tainted documents on behalf of respondent registrar, wasting court time and limiting appellant’s time to present his case even further. On Tuesday, 02 December 2014, appellant complained to Judge and requested mis-trial due to seizing documents and Judge’s refusal for appellant to examine respondent (crown solicitor). The dissatisfaction by appellant of Judge’s decision to admit all extra evidence to court on day 1, before the exact evidence on days 1, 2, 3 had even been presented to either party.”
As mentioned in relation to the previous ground of appeal, Mr Halls did have documents and other items seized by the police prior to the commencement of the appeal. The learned Judge was aware of the problem and dealt with that appropriately. Counsel for the Registrar was perfectly entitled to cross-examine Mr Halls in relation to some of the documents.
There were various discrepancies in documents produced by Mr Halls. They were put to him during the course of cross-examination and he was unable to explain the discrepancies. He denied that he had tampered with the documents. The learned Judge specifically declined to make a finding about that issue.
Mr Halls did apply for a mistrial on the last day and that was dealt with appropriately by the learned Judge. It was appropriate for the learned Judge to refuse Mr Halls’ application to cross-examine counsel for the Registrar.
There was no procedural unfairness in the way in which the learned Judge dealt with the hearing of this matter. All issues were agitated before her and Mr Halls put to the learned Judge all of his arguments. The learned Judge dealt with his relevant arguments (and indeed irrelevant ones) appropriately.
I refuse permission to appeal on this ground.
Ground (f) “The admissibility of evidence certainly came into question, and the Judge’s opinion on the appellant’s three doctors medicals over 11 years where the Crafter Medical Centre had been visited by the appellant’s own family for some thirty years prior, with the appellant actually attending the clinic from the early 1970’s when the family lived in the area.”
Mr Halls put before the learned Judge medical reports from the Crafter Medical Centre. The complaint by Mr Halls seems to be that the learned Judge did not attach the same weight to reports from his doctors as he thinks she should have. The learned Judge dealt carefully with this issue and noted that Mr Halls had sought to rely on documents concerning his driving history and past medical clearances to drive. The learned Judge specifically found that:
These are of limited relevance to the present situation and indeed much of what he produced was self-reported. The medical opinions were based largely upon that self-reporting.[6]
[6] Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204 [55].
Such a finding was clearly open to the learned Judge. Mr Halls’ ground of appeal amounts to no more than his dissatisfaction with the learned Judge’s findings.
I refuse permission to appeal on this ground.
Ground (g) “For the reasons contained in the Appellant’s Affidavit accompanying this Notice of Appeal.”
This is not a ground of appeal. The affidavit of Mr Halls contains a number of allegations against medical examiners and counsel for the respondent. The affidavit raises questions of the admissibility of evidence and whether he received a fair hearing in all the circumstances. It is not possible to distil any particular ground of appeal from this document which is why I confined Mr Halls to the grounds of appeal in his notice. His complaints range from allegations of criminal misconduct by various people dealing with his matter, allegations of “collusion” between SAPOL, the Crown Solicitor and the Registrar. He alleged political interference. This is just a cross section of a wide ranging number of assertions. There were many references to criminal cases, both South Australian and interstate which were not relevant to the hearing before the learned Judge.
I have attempted to distil from the material supplied by Mr Halls what he says is wrong with the decision of the learned Judge.
It is clear from the affidavit that Mr Halls believes that he does not suffer from seizures and/or epilepsy. It appears that he will accept no other position. The learned Judge found to the contrary. The evidence before her was overwhelming and clearly established that indeed Mr Halls does suffer from epilepsy.
In my opinion, the learned Judge dealt with Mr Halls and his case fairly. She noted that Mr Halls challenged the medical evidence upon which the Registrar and the Registrar’s delegate formed the view that he is not competent to drive a motor vehicle. The learned Judge admitted further evidence on that issue as she was entitled to do. Having heard all of the evidence and submissions, the learned Judge found that there was no cogent reason to depart from the conclusions of the Registrar’s delegate and the Registrar. The learned Judge found: “In my opinion the delegate and the Registrar were entirely justified in reaching the conclusions that they did. I reach similar conclusions.”[7]
[7] Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204 [58].
The learned Judge further found that the Registrar:[8]
took all relevant material into account and did not consider any irrelevant material in deciding to confirm the suspension. The further evidence produced during the hearing does not alter my view that the decision ought to be upheld. Indeed some of the further material provides considerable support to the decision appealed against as outlined above.
[8] Halls v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles of SA, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure [2014] SADC 204 [58].
I refuse permission to appeal on this ground.
Conclusion
I refuse permission to appeal on all grounds in the notice of appeal.