Legal Research
Cases
Head v Palmer

Head v Palmer

Case [2013] WASC 213 30 May 2013

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: HEAD -v- PALMER [2013] WASC 213

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 20 MAY 2013

DELIVERED : 30 MAY 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1145 of 2012

BETWEEN: PETER HEAD
Appellant
AND
BRETT MORGAN PALMER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B A LANE
File No  :PE 38937 of 2012, PE 38938 of 2012, PE 38939 of 2012, PE 38940 of 2012

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Whether magistrate predetermined the accused's culpability before all evidence adduced - Whether fair trial

Road traffic - Second conviction driving under suspension - Whether suspended sentence manifestly excessive - Usual range of penalties - Whether facts take matter outside range

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence allowed
Appellant resentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant: Dean R Love
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Anderson v Little [2009] WASC 143
Chinnery v Hansen [2006] WASCA 349
Griekspoor v Scott [2000] WASCA 419
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Kearney v Rinaudo [2007] WASC 104
Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65
Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39
Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100
Rossiter v Francisty [2005] WASC 270
Spack v Godfrey [2009] WASC 262
Style v Rudrum [2012] WASC 385
The State of Western Australia v Mitchell [2008] WASC 114
Vince v Martyn [2013] WASC 60

McKECHNIE J:

Why this matter comes to court

Around 6.00 pm on Sunday, 5 August 2012, Mr Head was having a few drinks and playing music rather loudly in his apartment in Bishops Row, East Perth. So the police were called and asked him to turn it down. He agreed. They left to write up the job in their vehicle.
Mr Head decided he would drive around to see a friend. This was possibly not the brightest decision he had ever made because:
•he had been drinking;
•he had lost his licence four weeks before; and
•the police were still there.
He left the apartment block at speed with wheels spinning (according to police); driving very cautiously (according to Mr Head).
He drove through a stop sign and two red lights at speed (according to police); drove very conscientiously at the speed limit, stopping at the sign and lights (according to Mr Head). The police pursued with lights flashing and sirens wailing (according to police); or with sirens only in Wellington Street (according to Mr Head).
At all events matters ended in Bennett Street and Mr Head found himself facing four serious traffic charges. He pleaded guilty to two of them and went to trial on the charges of reckless driving and failing to stop when called upon. He was convicted, the magistrate calling him an unmitigated liar.
Mr Head, whom I shall now call the appellant, appeals…

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 Head v Palmer

Details

AGLC: Head v Palmer [2013] WASC 213
Case: [2013] WASC 213
Decision Date: 30 MAY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Head v Palmer involved the applicant, Head, appealing against a conviction for driving under suspension. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Head had been convicted in the Magistrates Court of driving while his licence was suspended and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended after 3 months. Head appealed the conviction and sentence on several grounds, including that the magistrate had predetermined his culpability before all the evidence was heard, that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the facts of the case took it outside the usual range of penalties for such an offence.

The court considered whether the magistrate had predetermined the applicant's culpability, which would have denied him a fair trial. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the facts of the case took it outside the usual range of penalties for such an offence. The court had to determine if the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for this type of offence, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court found that the magistrate had not predetermined the applicant's culpability before all the evidence was heard, and therefore, the trial was fair. The court also determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the usual range of penalties for driving under suspension and concluded that the sentence was within that range. The court further found that the facts of the case did not take it outside the usual range of penalties. Therefore, the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court.

Orders