Ireland v Jackson - [2021] WASC 362

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   IRELAND -v- JACKSON [2021] WASC 362
CORAM:   ALLANSON J
HEARD:   15 MARCH 2021
DELIVERED          :   27 OCTOBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1052 of 2020
BETWEEN:   MARK GRAEME IRELAND
Appellant
AND
ALISON JACKSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE E WOODS
File Number            :   PE 35086 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Traffic offence - Speeding - Where prosecution relied on image from speed measuring and recording equipment - Whether proved that image produced from data retrieved from that equipment

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Where appellant did not formally plead not guilty but unequivocally indicated he wished to proceed to trial - Whether substantial miscarriage

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Where appellant claimed obligation on prosecution to disclose manual for speed measuring and recording equipment - Whether obligation to disclose

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Where prosecution did not produce proclamation certificate for subsidiary legislation - Whether subsidiary legislation required to be proved - Whether prosecution could rely on Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) or Reprints Act 1984 (WA)

Legislation:

Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on grounds 2, 3, 5 and 8
Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not Applicable
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Cases referred to in decision:

Bond v Hodgson [2014] WASCA 200
Fisher v O'Hehir [2020] WASC 353
Ireland v Watson [2018] WASCA 57
Ireland v Jackson [2020] WASC 2
Ireland v Watson [2020] WASC 1
Montalbano v Morris [2019] WASC 309
Waite v Hennah [2021] WASCA 69

ALLANSON J:

Introduction

The appellant, Mark Graeme Ireland, was convicted on 25 June 2020 on a charge of exceeding the speed limit. He was fined and ordered to pay court costs.
On 21 July 2020, Mr Ireland filed a notice of appeal containing seven 'draft grounds of appeal'. On 1 September 2020, he filed a document titled 'Final Draft Grounds of Appeal', now with 10 grounds. Ground 1 does not allege error, and grounds 4 and 10 were abandoned, taking the number back to seven. The remaining grounds disclose a degree of overlap.
The remaining grounds are not clearly expressed. Mr Ireland has some experience in representing himself in appeals in this court. But he has no legal training and, as for other persons who appear for themselves, the court must exercise care to ensure that he is not denied a case because of poorly expressed grounds or submissions.
The respondent, in written submissions, attempted to distil the substance of the grounds and the submissions filed by Mr Ireland into nine grounds (including at least one which was abandoned), but I am not sure that Mr Ireland was pressing all of those points. The grounds that were pressed, as I understood them, alleged:
(1)There was a miscarriage of justice because…

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 Ireland v Jackson

Details

AGLC: Ireland v Jackson [2021] WASC 362
Case: [2021] WASC 362
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mark Graeme Ireland, appealed against his conviction of speeding by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The respondent, Alisoun Jackson, was the prosecutor in the Magistrates Court and appeared in this appeal. The appellant was convicted on 25 June 2020 and fined. He filed a notice of appeal containing seven grounds on 21 July 2020, later reduced to four. The grounds alleged, among other things, that the prosecution had not proved that the speed measuring and recording equipment was accurate, and that the magistrate had erred in not permitting the appellant to put questions to the prosecution witness. The appeal was heard on 15 March 2021 and the decision was delivered on 27 October 2021. The appellant was represented in person. The respondent was represented by the State Solicitor's Office. The appeal was allowed on four grounds. The prosecution had not proved that the image from speed measuring and recording equipment on which the charge relied was accurate. The court found that the prosecution had not proved that the image that was relied on in evidence was produced from the data retrieved from the equipment. The appellant's conviction was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for a new trial.

Orders