Legal Research
Cases
Ireland v Watson

Ireland v Watson

Case [2018] WASCA 57 3 May 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   IRELAND -v- WATSON [2018] WASCA 57
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
HALL J

HEARD:   21 FEBRUARY 2018
DELIVERED          :   3 MAY 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACR 180 of 2017
BETWEEN:   MARK GRAEME IRELAND
Appellant
AND
GEOFF WATSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MARTINO J
Citation: IRELAND -v- WATSON [2017] WASC 242
File Number            :   SJA 1028 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Offence of contravening a red arrow signal by proceeding beyond the stop line - Whether appellant convicted twice for same offence - Whether Magistrates Court did not comply with Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) - Whether infringement notice and/or prosecution notice invalid - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal is refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Ireland v Watson [2017] WASC 242
Krysiak v Carruthers [2012] WASC 472
O'Connell v State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Shaw v McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231
Silbert v The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) (2004) 217 CLR 181

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

On 26 October 2016 the appellant appeared in the Magistrate's Court and pleaded guilty to a charge of contravening a red arrow signal contrary to r 40(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). A conviction was recorded and a fine of $150 imposed. He was ordered to pay costs of $169.10.
The appellant applied to a single judge of the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence, pursuant to pt 2 div 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA). That appeal was brought out of time. On 17 August 2017 Martino J refused an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.[1] The appellant now seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Martino J.
[1] Ireland v Watson [2017] WASC 242.
At all stages the appellant has represented himself.
A person whose application to extend time to commence an appeal under pt 2 div 2 is refused by a single judge may appeal to this court against the decision.[2] Leave of the court is required for each ground of appeal. The court must not give leave to appeal on a ground of appeal unless it is satisfied the ground has reasonable prospects of succeeding. Unless the court gives leave to appeal on at least one ground the appeal is taken to have been dismissed.[3]
[2] Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 16(1).
[3] Criminal Appeals Act, ss 9 and 18.
The appeal notice…

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 Watson

Details

AGLC: Ireland v Watson [2018] WASCA 57
Case: [2018] WASCA 57
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ireland, appealed against his conviction in the Magistrates Court for contravening a red arrow signal by proceeding beyond the stop line. Ireland was issued an infringement notice and subsequently a prosecution notice, leading to his conviction. He argued that he had been convicted twice for the same offence, the Magistrates Court did not comply with the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), and that the infringement notice and/or prosecution notice were invalid. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), specifically sections 22 and 23, and whether the issuance of the infringement and prosecution notices constituted double jeopardy.

The court examined the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) and found that the Magistrates Court did not contravene the Act. It held that Ireland's conviction did not amount to double jeopardy because the infringement notice and prosecution notice were distinct processes with different legal consequences. The court also determined that the Magistrates Court had complied with the Act in issuing the infringement notice and subsequent prosecution notice, and that neither notice was invalid. The court found that Ireland's arguments regarding double jeopardy and procedural compliance were not well-founded.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and Ireland's conviction was upheld. The court held that the Magistrates Court's proceedings were in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) and that Ireland's conviction was valid. The infringement notice and prosecution notice were not found to be invalid, and there was no double jeopardy in this case. The court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural history of the case.

Orders