Harrison v Wilkins - [1996] QCA 170

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 170
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 93 of 1996

Brisbane
[Harrison v. Wilkins]

IN RE:

DAVID CAMERON HARRISON

Appellant

AND:

ROBERT JOHN WILKINS

Respondent

SPECIAL CASE STATED PURSUANT

TO S.227 OF THE JUSTICES ACT 1886

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
Williams J.

Judgment delivered 31/05/1996

Separate concurring reasons for judgment by each member of the Court.

ANSWER TO QUESTIONS RAISED PURSUANT TO S.227 OF THE JUSTICES ACT
1886:

1. NO.
2. IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ANSWER.

IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE ANSWERS THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF 5 JANUARY 1996. THE RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE HIS COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT.

CATCHWORDS:	SPECIAL CASE STATED pursuant to s.227 Justices Act 1886 - Traffic Act ss.15, 16 and 20A - orders made pursuant to s.20A - automatic disqualification - offence against s.15 Traffic Act.
Counsel:	Mr. D. Morzone for the appellant Mrs. L. Clare with her Ms. L. McConnell for the respondent
Solicitors:	David J. Greenwood & Co. for the appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	21 May 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 31/05/96

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the judgment of Davies JA., with which I am in substantial agreement.

For reasons which need not be analysed, the provisions of the Traffic Act 1949 referred to empower a court to make both an order disqualifying a person from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence (which includes a provisional licence) and an order directing that that person be issued with a provisional licence. Given that it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road if disqualified from obtaining or holding a driver’s licence, the former order for disqualification, standing alone, must be intended to relate to any driver’s licence. If both orders are made - as in this case - the apparent conflict can only be reconciled by reading down the order for disqualification so as to relate, in such circumstances, only to driver’s licences other than a provisional licence, leaving the person to whom the orders are directed entitled to obtain and hold such a licence.

That was not seriously contested, nor was it disputed that if such a person
applied for a provisional licence it must be issued and, once issued, he or she would be
permitted to drive a motor vehicle on a road consistently with that provisional licence.
It is not to the point that, in this matter, an application for a provisional licence
had not been made and a provisional licence had not issued. The critical consideration
is that the person to whom the orders were directed was, by the second order, entitled
to obtain and hold a provisional licence. Such a person cannot be described as
disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence; he or she is only disqualified
from holding a driver’s licence except…

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 Harrison v Wilkins

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Wilkins [1996] QCA 170
Case: [1996] QCA 170
Decision Date: 31/05/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrison v Wilkins was heard in the court and involved a dispute regarding the application of traffic laws, specifically the Traffic Act. Harrison was contesting the disqualification imposed upon him following an offence under the Act. Wilkins, representing the state, argued that the disqualification was valid and correctly applied according to the Act. The central issue before the court was whether the automatic disqualification order, issued under section 20A of the Traffic Act, was correctly applied by Wilkins in this instance.

The court was required to determine if the disqualification was procedurally correct and whether the provisions of section 20A of the Traffic Act were properly invoked. Additionally, the court had to consider the interpretation of sections 15, 16, and 20A of the Traffic Act to ensure that the disqualification was legally justified and that the process followed adhered to the statutory requirements.

The court examined the statutory framework and found that Wilkins had correctly applied the provisions of section 20A of the Traffic Act. The court determined that the disqualification was in accordance with the legislative intent and the procedural fairness required by the Act. The court emphasised the importance of automatic disqualification as a deterrent and a measure to ensure road safety. The reasoning was grounded in the clear language of the Traffic Act and the need to uphold the legislative framework governing traffic offences.

The court upheld the disqualification imposed on Harrison and found that Wilkins had correctly followed the statutory process. No orders were made to alter the disqualification imposed, and the decision affirmed the validity of the automatic disqualification as per the provisions of the Traffic Act.

Orders