HEBBARD -v- LETCHFORD [2007] WASC 257

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 257
Case No:	SJA:1071/2007	Heard:	23 OCTOBER 2007
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	31/10/07
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Respondent resentenced
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	BENJAMIN PAUL HEBBARD CLINTON JOHN LETCHFORD
Catchwords:	Road traffic Period of fines suspension Cumulative suspension imposed Whether legally disentitled to hold or obtain licence Sevelj v Roffey followed
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49
Case References:	Sevelj v Roffey [2002] WASCA 20; 35 MVR 504

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : HEBBARD -v- LETCHFORD [2007] WASC 257 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 23 OCTOBER 2007 DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1071 of 2007 BETWEEN : BENJAMIN PAUL HEBBARD

Appellant

AND

CLINTON JOHN LETCHFORD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE L H JONES

File No : AR 6515 of 2007

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Period of fines suspension - Cumulative suspension imposed - Whether legally disentitled to hold or obtain licence - Sevelj v Roffey followed

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Respondent resentenced

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A Shuy

Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Respondent : In person

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

Sevelj v Roffey [2002] WASCA 20; 35 MVR 504

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: The respondent was charged as follows:

That on 07/05/2007 at Gosnells he drove a motor vehicle namely a Holden Commodore, registered number 1AUA 307 on a road, namely Southern River Road, without being the holder of the appropriate valid drivers licence for that class of vehicle and while legally disentitled to hold a driver's licence, having been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence under a licence suspension order made under section 19 or 43 of the

Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994

(WA).

2 There was an application by the prosecution to amend the notice to remove the fact that the respondent had been disqualified under the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA) on the basis that this would expose the respondent to a higher penalty. The magistrate refused the amendment and fined the respondent $200 with no order for suspension, the magistrate commenting that the matter may need clearing up by way of appeal.

3 The prosecution grounds of appeal are as follows:

The learned Magistrate erred in convicting and sentencing the Respondent under section 49(1)(a) of the RTA, in the circumstances specified in section 49(2)(a)(iv) when:

(a) the Respondent's Motor Driver's Licence (MDL) was suspended for non-payment of fines on 10 November 2004 and the Respondent received a cumulative court imposed suspension on 13 January 2006;

(b) the Respondent's MDL suspension for non-payment of fines was still operative; and

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 Hebbard v Letchford

Details

AGLC: Hebbard v Letchford [2007] WASC 257
Case: [2007] WASC 257
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hebbard v Letchford, the Court of Appeal of Victoria addressed a dispute involving the suspension of a driver's licence. The appellant, Hebbard, was contesting the imposition of a period of licence suspension following a traffic offence. The respondent, Letchford, was the authorised officer who imposed the suspension. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the cumulative period of licence suspension legally disentitled Hebbard from holding or obtaining a licence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the imposition of a cumulative period of licence suspension resulted in Hebbard being legally disentitled to hold or obtain a licence. This required the court to interpret relevant statutory provisions and consider precedent, particularly the case of Sevelj v Roffey. The Court of Appeal examined whether the statutory language and legislative intent aligned with the imposition of cumulative licence suspensions.

The Court of Appeal, following the reasoning in Sevelj v Roffey, found that the cumulative period of licence suspension imposed on Hebbard legally disentitled him from holding or obtaining a licence. The court held that the statutory language and legislative intent did not support the imposition of a cumulative period of licence suspension, thereby rendering Hebbard's licence suspension invalid. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the respondent resentence Hebbard in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Respondent resentenced

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.