HEDGE -v- THURSTUN [2001] WASCA 43

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 43
Case No:	SJA:1214/2000	Heard:	12 FEBRUARY 2001
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	22/02/01
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Conviction quashed Orders for fine and motor driver's licence disqualification set aside. Judgment of not guilty substituted
PDF Version

Parties:	TREVOR LEE HEDGE DANIEL ANDREW THURSTUN
Catchwords:	Road traffic Driving in manner dangerous to the public or any person No evidence of danger to the public or any person Whether on appeal should be conviction on alternative of driving in a manner which is inherently dangerous Criminal law and procedure Appeal Justices Act 1902 (WA) Power on appeal Amendment of complaint by substitution of different offence Power to convict of different offence
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60(1) Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 46, s 199(1)(c) and (d)
Case References:	A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97 Allen v Gittos (1995) 13 WAR 560 Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95 Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390 McBride v The Queen (1965) 115 CLR 44 Mitchell v Myers (1955) 57 WALR 49 Walker v Osborne (1955) 22 MVR 363 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : HEDGE -v- THURSTUN [2001] WASCA 43 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 12 FEBRUARY 2001 DELIVERED : 22 FEBRUARY 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1214 of 2000 BETWEEN : TREVOR LEE HEDGE

Appellant

AND

DANIEL ANDREW THURSTUN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Driving in manner dangerous to the public or any person - No evidence of danger to the public or any person - Whether on appeal should be conviction on alternative of driving in a manner which is inherently dangerous

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Power on appeal - Amendment of complaint by substitution of different offence - Power to convict of different offence

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60(1)

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 46, s 199(1)(c) and (d)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed
Orders for fine and motor driver's licence disqualification set aside. Judgment of not guilty substituted

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M J Hawkins

Respondent : Mr A Derrick

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97
Allen v Gittos (1995) 13 WAR 560
Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
McBride v The Queen (1965) 115 CLR 44
Mitchell v Myers (1955) 57 WALR 49
Walker v Osborne (1955) 22 MVR 363

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: At 11.25 am on Wednesday 28 June 2000 the appellant was riding a blue Kawasaki Ninja 900 motor cycle on Griffith Street, Burswood. He was observed by police officers who were stopped at a red traffic control light behind…

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 Hedge v Thurstun

Details

AGLC: Hedge v Thurstun [2001] WASCA 43
Case: [2001] WASCA 43
Decision Date: 22 FEBRUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hedge v Thurstun involved a dispute regarding a traffic offence, specifically an allegation of dangerous driving. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The defendant, Hedge, was initially convicted in the Magistrates Court of driving in a manner dangerous to the public or any person, contrary to the Road Traffic Act. Hedge appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and the applicability of an alternative conviction for driving in a manner inherently dangerous.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for driving in a manner dangerous to the public or any person and whether the court had the power to convict the defendant of an alternative offence of driving in a manner inherently dangerous. The court also needed to consider whether the amendment of the complaint to substitute a different offence was permissible under the Justices Act 1902.

The court found that there was no evidence of actual danger to the public or any person. It held that the conviction could not stand and that the appropriate course was to consider the alternative offence of driving in a manner inherently dangerous. The court concluded that the Magistrates Court had the power to convict the defendant of an alternative offence, and that the amendment of the complaint was permissible. However, given the absence of evidence to support any conviction for dangerous driving, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and substituted a judgment of not guilty. Consequently, the orders for the fine and the disqualification of the defendant's motor driver's licence were also set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed

Orders for fine and motor driver's licence disqualification set aside. Judgment of not guilty substituted

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.