IBRAHIM -v- HERRING [2011] WASCA 266

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 266
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:133/2010	Heard:	20 SEPTEMBER 2011
Coram:	McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA J	Delivered:	13/12/11
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused on all grounds Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MOHAMED TAREK IBRAHIM RAL HERRING
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) offences Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 18, s 27 Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), s 73, s 111, s 126
Case References:	Ibrahim v Herring [2008] WASC 91 Ibrahim v Herring [2010] WASC 190 Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : IBRAHIM -v- HERRING [2011] WASCA 266 CORAM : McLURE P

BUSS JA

MAZZA J

HEARD : 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CACR 133 of 2010 BETWEEN : MOHAMED TAREK IBRAHIM

Appellant

AND

RAL HERRING

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HALL J

Citation : IBRAHIM -v- HERRING [2010] WASC 190

File No : SJA 1091 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) offences - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 18, s 27

Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), s 73, s 111, s 126

Result:

Leave to appeal refused on all grounds

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Ibrahim v Herring [2008] WASC 91
Ibrahim v Herring [2010] WASC 190
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal from Hall J's refusal to grant leave to appeal against the appellant's conviction in the Magistrates Court of two offences under the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) (the Code).

2 The convictions arose out of an incident that occurred at the intersection of Wellington and Barrack Streets, Perth (the intersection) on 24 November 2006. The prosecution case was as follows. The appellant had driven east along Wellington Street and stopped at the intersection in the middle lane behind a truck. At the intersection there were three eastbound lanes on Wellington Street. The left-hand lane had an arrow indicating that traffic…

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 Ibrahim v Herring

Details

AGLC: Ibrahim v Herring [2011] WASCA 266
Case: [2011] WASCA 266
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ibrahim v Herring, the appellant, Ibrahim, sought to appeal against his conviction for multiple road traffic offences under the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). The offences included dangerous driving, exceeding speed limits, and driving without due care and attention. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Western Australia.

The central legal issues that the Court of Appeal needed to address were whether the primary judge had erred in his application of the law or in his assessment of the evidence, which could have affected the appellant's conviction. Specifically, the appeal questioned whether the evidence was sufficient to establish dangerous driving and if the primary judge had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Code.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's decision was well-reasoned and based on a proper application of the law. The Court held that the evidence was ample to support the appellant's conviction for dangerous driving, as it demonstrated that the appellant's actions posed a significant risk to public safety. Furthermore, the Court found no errors in the interpretation or application of the Road Traffic Code. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal refused the appellant leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal on all grounds. The appellant's conviction for dangerous driving and other related offences remains valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused on all grounds

Appeal dismissed

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.