Traffic law - Licensing of drivers - Permanent disqualification from driving - Whether further disqualification can be made cumulative on an existing permanent disqualification

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 s 49(1)(a), s 49(3), s 63(1), s 63(2)(c), s 78(3)(c)

Result:

Appeal Dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A J Klein
Respondent: Mr N C Monahan

Solicitors:

Appellant: Stephen Browne & Co
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Henriksen v The Grafton Hotel Ltd [1942] 2 KB 184
Lee Vanit v The Queen (1997) 190 CLR 378
R v Farlow [1980] 2 NSWLR 166
R v Taikmaskis (1986) 19 A Crim R 383

Case(s) also cited:

Chen v Minister for Immigration (1992) 37 FCR 501
Davis v Commissioner of Police (1990) 12 MVR 297
McLelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services Board [1957] 1 WLR 594
Re Marryat [1948] 1 Ch 298
Tan Te Lam v Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1996] 2 WLR 863
Thompson v His Honour Judge Byrne [1999] HCA 16; (1999) 73 ALJR 642
Traffic Board v Rigg, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960480; 29 August 1996

PIDGEON J: On 28 December 1993 the appellant, in the Court of Petty Sessions at Norseman, pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle without being the holder of a driver's licence. Prior to his committing this offence he had been permanently disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence and this was the position when he appeared in the Court of Petty Sessions. The presiding Justice of the Peace imposed a fine of $200 and ordered that his motor driver's licence be suspended "Nine months cumulative to current suspension". This order was made pursuant to s 49(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974, the relevant portion of which reads:
"…the period of disqualification so imposed shall be cumulative upon any other period of disqualification to which the person may then be subject or upon any period for which the operation of his driver's licence may currently be suspended."
The appellant is appealing against the order of cumulative suspension on the basis that, as a matter of construction, s 49(3) could have no operation, as it is not possible to impose a cumulative suspension on a person subject to a permanent disqualification for life.
The circumstances in which the question has become relevant are, that following his conviction in the Court of Petty Sessions, the appellant applied to a Judge of the District Court pursuant to s 78 for the removal of the permanent disqualification and he was successful in obtaining such an order. It was not possible for him to…

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 Horton v Burton

Details

AGLC: Horton v Burton [1999] WASCA 82
Case: [1999] WASCA 82
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Horton v Burton, the applicant, Horton, sought to challenge a decision by the respondent, Burton, regarding a permanent disqualification from driving. This case involved a dispute over the validity of a further disqualification order imposed by Burton, who was acting in his capacity as the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, upon Horton. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision by Burton to impose a further disqualification on Horton, who was already subject to a permanent disqualification, was lawful. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the additional disqualification could be imposed cumulatively on an existing permanent disqualification, and if such an imposition was consistent with the statutory framework governing driver licensing and disqualifications.

The court found that the statutory provisions governing driver disqualifications did not permit a further disqualification to be imposed cumulatively on an existing permanent disqualification. The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant statutory language and the legislative intent behind the provisions. It was concluded that the imposition of a further disqualification in such circumstances was beyond the powers conferred to Burton under the statute. Consequently, the court held that Burton's decision to impose a further disqualification on Horton was invalid.

As a result of the court's determination, the orders sought by Horton were granted, and the decision of Burton was quashed. The court's decision effectively restored Horton's entitlement to drive, subject to any other applicable conditions or restrictions.

Orders