Illich v Young

Case [2000] WASCA 383

ILLICH -v- YOUNG [2000] WASCA 383



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 383
Case No:SJA:1143/200028 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:ROBERTS-SMITH J28/11/00
8Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
PDF Version
Parties:PAUL STEPHEN ILLICH
JOHN RAYMOND YOUNG

Catchwords:
Justices appeal
Appeal against dismissal of charge under Road Traffic Act 1974
Traffic offence
Honest and reasonable mistake as to "conditions" of licence
Whether mistake of fact or law

Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974, s 64A(3)(a)
Criminal Code, s 22, s 24

Case References:
McCaskie v Bagby, unreported;  SCt of WA; Library No 1534; 18 April 1975
Ottobrino V Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR
Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233
Brooks v Roberts (1997) 25 MVR 83
Campbells v DPP (Cth) 100 A Crim R 209
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280
Egerton v Taylor (1996) 90 A Crim R 186
Kelsall v Avins (1997) 25 MVR 57
Smith v Ellis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970107; 18 March 1997

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : ILLICH -v- YOUNG [2000] WASCA 383 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 28 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1143 of 2000 BETWEEN : PAUL STEPHEN ILLICH
    Appellant

    AND

    JOHN RAYMOND YOUNG
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Justices appeal - Appeal against dismissal of charge under Road Traffic Act 1974



Traffic offence - Honest and reasonable mistake as to "conditions" of licence - Whether mistake of fact or law


Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974, s 64A(3)(a)


Criminal Code, s 22, s 24


Result:

Appeal allowed




(Page 2)

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Ms L J Dias
    Respondent : Mr M J Bowden


Solicitors:

    Appellant : State Crown Solicitor
    Respondent : Cannon Bowden & Co


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

McCaskie v Bagby, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 1534; 18 April 1975
Ottobrino V Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR
Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233

Case(s) also cited:



Brooks v Roberts (1997) 25 MVR 83
Campbells v DPP (Cth) 100 A Crim R 209
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280
Egerton v Taylor (1996) 90 A Crim R 186
Kelsall v Avins (1997) 25 MVR 57
Smith v Ellis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970107; 18 March 1997

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This appeal is against the decision of her Worship Mrs Bennett-Borlase SM given in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 9 August 2000. Her Worship dismissed a complaint holding that the respondent was excused from liability under s 24 of the Criminal Code of Western Australia on the basis that he had made an honest and reasonable mistake as to the "conditions" that applied to his licence. Her Worship awarded costs to the respondent in the sum of $800.

2 The circumstances of the complaint before her Worship were that on 21 May 1999 the respondent had been convicted of an offence against s 63…

Continue reading Illich v Young

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383
Case
[2000] WASCA 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Illich, the appellant, against Young, the respondent. The central issue was whether the appellant could rely on an honest and reasonable mistake of fact or law concerning the conditions of his driver's licence as a defence against a charge brought under the Road Traffic Act 1974. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant had been charged with a traffic offence and argued that his mistake about the conditions of his licence should serve as a defence. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the nature of the appellant's mistake and whether it could be considered honest and reasonable, thus absolving him from liability.

The court needed to decide whether the mistake was one of fact, which would require a demonstration that the appellant genuinely believed the conditions of his licence permitted the act he was charged with, or a mistake of law, which would require a demonstration that the appellant genuinely believed his conduct was lawful. The court considered whether an honest and reasonable mistake of fact or law could negate the appellant's liability for the traffic offence. The court examined previous cases and statutory provisions to discern whether such a defence was available in this context.

The court found that the appellant's mistake was indeed honest and reasonable, and as such, it negated his liability for the offence. The court emphasised that the appellant's belief was based on a genuine misunderstanding of the licence conditions, which were not clear or obvious. The court concluded that such a mistake, if honestly and reasonably held, could serve as a valid defence against the charge. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction against the appellant. The court's reasoning hinged on the principle that a genuine and reasonable misunderstanding of the conditions of a licence could protect an individual from liability if the mistake was not due to negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.