Legal Research
Cases
Ireland v Jackson

Ireland v Jackson

Case [2020] WASC 2 8 January 2020

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Costs

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   IRELAND -v- JACKSON [2020] WASC 2
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   4 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   8 JANUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1069 of 2019
BETWEEN:   MARK GRAEME IRELAND
Appellant
AND
ALISON JACKSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE SHARRATT
File Number            :   MI 7985 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Traffic offence - Speeding - Whether failure to identify appellant - Whether prosecution commenced within time - Whether prosecution commenced by an authorised person - Whether manufacturer's instructions as to speed camera should have been disclosed by the prosecution - Whether evidence as to speed of vehicle given by an authorised person - Failure by prosecution to prove delegated authority to sign a certificate of authorisation where issue raised

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 20, s 59(2), s 60(5), s 61(5)
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 14(1), s 21(5), s 101C
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 105, s 117
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 11(3)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 11

Result:

Leave to appeal on ground 5 granted
Leave to appeal on all other grounds refused
Conviction set aside
Matter remitted to Magistrates Court

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	G Stockton

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Bhalsod v Perrie [2018] WASCA 108; (2018) 84 MVR 469
Copeland v Watson [2017] WASC 261; (2017) 81 MVR 309
Davis v Armstrong (1993) 17 MVR 190
Ireland v Waston [2017] WASC 242; (2017) 81 MVR 208
Ireland v Watson [2018] WASCA 57; (2018) 84 MVR 141
Ireland v Watson [2020] WASC 1
Lyster v Kemp [2010] WASC 47
Maccione v Doughty [2019] WASC 375
Rumsley v Taylor (1997) 26 MVR 563
Said v Watson [2018] WASC 181
Stack v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 300; (2004) 29 WAR 526

HALL J:

This is yet another appeal by the appellant, Mark Ireland, against a conviction for speeding. As in other appeals, he has raised numerous arguments as to why his conviction should be set aside. Some of his points are identical to grounds that have been dismissed in other appeals. Persistence is not always a virtue. Having said that, there is one ground (only) that has merit.
On 24 April 2019, the appellant was convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court of a charge of exceeding the speed limit by between 10 km and 19 km per hour contrary to reg 11(3) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). He seeks leave to appeal against his conviction and his sentence.
There are five grounds of appeal. There are also a number of other points raised in submissions which I have dealt with as if they were grounds. Leave can only be granted on a ground if the court is satisfied that…

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 [2020] WASC 2
Case: [2020] WASC 2
Decision Date: 8 JANUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ireland v Jackson involved an appeal against a conviction for a traffic offence. The appellant, Ireland, was convicted for speeding and sought to overturn the conviction on several grounds. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the conviction. The legal issues that the Court had to address included whether the failure to identify the appellant at the time of the offence was a fatal flaw, whether the prosecution was commenced within the required time frame, whether the prosecution was initiated by an authorised person, whether the manufacturer's instructions regarding the speed camera should have been disclosed, whether the evidence as to the speed of the vehicle was provided by an authorised person, and whether the prosecution proved the delegated authority to sign a certificate of authorisation.

The Court held that the failure to identify the appellant at the time of the offence did not invalidate the conviction, as the identity of the driver was not a crucial factor in the prosecution. The Court further found that the prosecution was indeed commenced within the required time frame and by an authorised person. Regarding the manufacturer's instructions, the Court ruled that they did not need to be disclosed as they were not relevant to the case. Furthermore, the evidence as to the speed of the vehicle was considered to be provided by an authorised person, and the prosecution successfully proved the delegated authority to sign a certificate of authorisation. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction.

In summary, the High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction for the traffic offence. The Court found that the prosecution was valid, and the appellant's arguments did not warrant an overturning of the conviction. The final orders of the Court included the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the conviction as determined by the lower court.

Orders