Inglis v Police - [2010] SASC 83

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
INGLIS v POLICE
[2010] SASC 83
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
9 April 2010
TRAFFIC LAW - REGULATION OF TRAFFIC - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - POWERS AND DUTIES OF PROSECUTION AS TO CALLING OF WITNESS AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE - GENERALLY
Appeal against conviction for offence of failing to forthwith comply with a direction of a member of the police by failing to stop vehicle when directed, contrary to section 40H(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) - whether inconsistencies in evidence regarding distance for which police vehicle followed defendant's vehicle with dome lights activated, undermined Magistrate's reasoning - whether Magistrate's findings as to statements made by defendant accorded with evidence - consideration of manner of eliciting evidence.
Held: appeal dismissed - regardless of precise distance police followed defendant's vehicle with dome lights activated, there was in the circumstances a clear direction to the defendant to stop his vehicle - although evidence of statements attributed to defendant introduced in inappropriate manner, that evidence was before the Court - that evidence established that the defendant was aware of the direction to stop - Magistrate correct on the evidence to convict the defendant.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 40H(5), referred to.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Police v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150; Police v Eiffe [2007] SASC 178; Tims v Police [2008] SASC 141; Tazroo v Police [2002] SASC 155; Police v A, TG [2006] SASC 299, considered.

INGLIS v POLICE
[2010] SASC 83
Magistrates Appeal
GRAY J:
Introduction

Kenneth Raymond Inglis, the defendant and appellant, was charged with the offence of failing to forthwith comply with a direction of a member of the police force by failing to stop his vehicle when directed, contrary to section 40H(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).[1] The defendant pleaded not guilty to that charge. Following a trial before a Magistrate, the defendant was convicted. This appeal is against that conviction.
[1](1) An authorised officer or police officer may, for the purpose of or in connection with exercising other powers under a road law, direct—
(a)     the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle; or
(b)     the driver of a vehicle or any other person not to do one or more of the following:
(i)      move the vehicle;
(ii)     interfere with it or any equipment in or on it;
(iii)    interfere with its load.
(2)A direction to stop a vehicle may require that it be stopped without delay, or that it be stopped at the nearest place for it to be safely stopped as indicated by the officer.
(3)A direction to stop the vehicle, or not to move it, or not to interfere with it or any equipment in or on it or with its load, does not prevent an authorised officer or police officer from giving the driver or another person any later inconsistent directions under a road law or any…

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 Inglis v Police

Details

AGLC: Inglis v Police [2010] SASC 83
Case: [2010] SASC 83
Decision Date: 9 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Inglis v Police was against the conviction of the defendant for the offence of failing to forthwith comply with a direction of a police member to stop a vehicle, as outlined in section 40H(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The defendant was found to have failed to stop their vehicle when directed, leading to the charge. The appeal sought to overturn the conviction based on perceived inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the distance over which the police vehicle pursued the defendant's vehicle with its dome lights activated, as well as questioning the accuracy of the statements attributed to the defendant. The central issues before the court were whether these inconsistencies undermined the Magistrate's reasoning and whether the Magistrate's findings concerning the defendant's statements were consistent with the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence closely, particularly the testimony of the police officers and the defendant. It was noted that the discrepancies in the evidence about the distance followed by the police vehicle and the statements made by the defendant could potentially affect the reliability of the findings. However, the court determined that the inconsistencies did not sufficiently undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not comply with the police direction to stop. The manner in which the evidence was elicited and the weight given to the testimonies were also considered, with the court concluding that the Magistrate's findings were supported by the evidence.

After careful consideration of the arguments and evidence, the court upheld the conviction. The inconsistencies in the evidence were not deemed significant enough to affect the overall reliability of the prosecution's case. The court found that the prosecution had met the burden of proof, and the conviction was therefore affirmed. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood as originally decided by the Magistrate. The court's decision underscored the importance of the prosecution proving each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, despite some evidential discrepancies.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Having regard to the above considerations, I have reached the conclusion that the Magistrate was correct on the evidence to convict the defendant. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of the offence. Conclusion The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.