Ireland v Watson - [2020] WASC 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   IRELAND -v- WATSON [2020] WASC 1
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   4 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   8 JANUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1148 of 2018
BETWEEN:   MARK GRAEME IRELAND
Appellant
AND
GEOFF WATSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE TAVENER
File Number            :   MI 5720 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Traffic offence - Speeding - Appellant convicted in his absence - Whether appellant had pleaded guilty - Whether appellant subject to 'double punishment' - Whether prosecution commenced within time - Whether prosecution commenced by an authorised person - Effect of minor defect in prosecution notice

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 17
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 20, s 51, s 55, s 57, s 59, s 60, s 126, s 127, s 147, s 178, sch 1 cl 5
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 7, s 14, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 21, s 101C
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 105
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 11(3)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 11

Result:

Leave to appeal on ground 1 granted
Leave to appeal on grounds 2 ‑ 5 refused
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Charge remitted to the Magistrates Court

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Ms E J O'Keeffe

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
Ireland v Watson [2018] WASCA 57; (2018) 84 MVR 141
Main v Lapsley [2008] WASC 129
Perry v Carrier [2013] WASC 299
The State of Western Australia v Landers [2000] WASCA 125; (2000) 22 WAR 278

HALL J:

On 3 December 2018, the appellant was convicted in his absence in the Magistrates Court on a charge of exceeding the speed limit in a speed zone by not more than 9 km per hour contrary to reg 11(3) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) (RTC). He seeks leave to appeal against that conviction.
There are five grounds of appeal. The respondent concedes that ground 1 has merit. In essence that ground asserts that the magistrate made a mistake as to whether the appellant had previously entered a plea of guilty. For the reasons that follow, I have come to the conclusion that the respondent's concession is properly made, that the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law.
In the circumstances it is not strictly necessary to address the other grounds. However, as those grounds relate to matters that the appellant may attempt to raise again and as they were the subject of detailed submissions at the hearing of the appeal, it is sensible to deal with them. For the reasons that follow, none of those…

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 [2020] WASC 1
Case: [2020] WASC 1
Decision Date: 8 JANUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction for a traffic offence involving speeding. The appellant, Ireland, was convicted in his absence and sought to challenge the conviction on several grounds. The legal issues that the court had to determine included whether the appellant had in fact pleaded guilty to the offence, whether he was subject to double punishment, whether the prosecution was commenced within the requisite time, whether it was initiated by an authorised person, and the effect of a minor defect in the prosecution notice.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties before concluding that the appellant had not actually pleaded guilty to the offence as claimed. The court found that the appellant had been misled and had not intended to plead guilty. The court also found that the appellant was not subject to double punishment and that the prosecution was commenced within the requisite time and by an authorised person. While there was a minor defect in the prosecution notice, the court held that it did not affect the validity of the prosecution and therefore did not impact the conviction.

The court accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. It was ordered that the appellant's name be removed from the register of convictions and that a fresh prosecution be initiated if the prosecution wished to pursue the matter further. The court also noted that the prosecution should take care to ensure that all procedural requirements are strictly adhered to in future proceedings to avoid any similar issues arising.

Orders