Legal Research
Cases
Hunt v Bingham

Hunt v Bingham

Case [2018] WASC 148 11 May 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   HUNT -v- BINGHAM [2018] WASC 148
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   10 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   11 MAY 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1064 of 2017
BETWEEN:   ADAM KEITH HUNT
Appellant
AND
GREGORY BINGHAM
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE BENN
File Number             :   JO 13905 of 2015, JO 13906 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - Whether a miscarriage of justice for unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction - No miscarriage of justice - Magistrates findings reasonable in all circumstances

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9, s 14
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59A, s 59

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr C Townsend
Respondent	:	Ms K Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Lewis Blyth & Hooper (Gosnells)
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Brown v Lucas [2011] WASC 356
Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; (1992) 173 CLR 572
King v The Queen [2012] HCA 24; (2012) 245 CLR 588
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
McBride v The Queen [1966] HCA 22; (1966) 115 CLR 44
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56; (2008) A Crim R 587
Morris v The Queen [1987] HCA 50; (1987) 163 CLR 453
Peacock v James [2010] WASC 358
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25

MCGRATH J:

Introduction

Mr Hunt was convicted in the Magistrates Court after trial of two offences, being one offence of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and one offence of dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm, contrary to s 59(1)(b) and s 59A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (the Act). Both offences arise from the same motor vehicle incident.
Mr Hunt appeals his convictions, contending that there was a miscarriage of justice in that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Mr Hunt does not say that the Magistrate made errors in his findings, but instead contends that the findings that were made did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his driving was dangerous in all the circumstances. I have reviewed the entire trial record and determined that there was no miscarriage of justice. That is, Mr Hunt did commit the offences of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and bodily harm. Accordingly, for the following reasons, leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.
In these reasons for decision, I will consider the following:
(a)The Magistrates Court proceedings.
(b)The grounds of appeal.
(c)The legal principles.
(d)The merits of the appeal.

The charges…

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 Hunt v Bingham

Details

AGLC: Hunt v Bingham [2018] WASC 148
Case: [2018] WASC 148
Decision Date: 11 MAY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Hunt, against the decision of the Magistrates Court which convicted him of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The case involved the collision of two motorcycles in which the appellant, Bingham, sustained serious injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether the conviction of Hunt was a miscarriage of justice due to being unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal hinged on the adequacy of the evidence and the reasoning process of the Magistrate.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial to support the conviction. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the Magistrate's findings were reasonable in all the circumstances. The appeal argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hunt was the cause of the accident and that his driving was dangerous. The court was required to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence, and the reasoning of the Magistrate in arriving at the conviction.

The court found that the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the conviction. The Magistrate's findings were based on a detailed consideration of the evidence, including witness statements, expert evidence, and the circumstances of the accident. The court concluded that the Magistrate's reasoning was sound and that the findings were reasonable in all the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and no miscarriage of justice was found.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction of Hunt as decided by the Magistrates Court. The court upheld the findings of the Magistrate and found no error in the process or reasoning that led to the conviction. The appeal was unsuccessful, and Hunt remained convicted of the charges.

Orders