Ireland v Watson - [2017] WASC 242

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: IRELAND -v- WATSON [2017] WASC 242

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 17 AUGUST 2017

DELIVERED : 17 AUGUST 2017

FILE NO/S: SJA 1028 of 2017

BETWEEN: MARK GRAEME IRELAND
Appellant
AND
GEOFF WATSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE E A WOODS
File No  :PE 29351 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Prosecution following election after receipt of infringement notice

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA)
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA)
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms H C Richardson

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Bardsley v The Queen (2004) 29 WAR 338
Eastough v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 88
Krysiak v Carruthers [2012] WASC 472
Project Blue Sky Inc v The Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Smolarek v Roper [2009] WASCA 124

MARTINO J: By Prosecution Notice PE 29351/2016 lodged in the Perth Magistrates Court on 25 May 2016 the appellant, Mr Ireland, was charged that on 12 November 2014 he contravened a red arrow signal, contrary to reg 40(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). On 26 October 2016 Mr Ireland appeared before Deputy Chief Magistrate Woods. Mr Ireland was convicted on his plea of guilty, fined $150 and ordered to pay costs of $169.10.
By an appeal notice filed on 6 April 2017 Mr Ireland applies for leave to appeal. Mr Ireland states in his appeal notice that he applies for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy Chief Magistrate Woods. His draft Grounds of Appeal indicate that he is seeking to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The appeal is out of time – an appeal against a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction cannot be commenced later than 28 days after the date of the decision unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise: s 10(3) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).
On 30 May 2017 I ordered that the applications for an extension of time to appeal and for leave to appeal be heard with the appeal.

Background

On 20 November 2014 a traffic infringement notice addressed to Mr Ireland was issued under s 102B of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) alleging that the offence of contravening a red arrow signal by proceeding beyond the stop sign had occurred on 12 November 2014 at Welshpool and that Mr Ireland was the driver.
On 7 January 2015 a final demand notice addressed to Mr Ireland was issued under s 14(1) of the Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA).
On 23 February 2015…

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 [2017] WASC 242
Case: [2017] WASC 242
Decision Date: 17 AUGUST 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ireland v Watson was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Ireland, appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had quashed a conviction for an offence under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Ireland was convicted of the offence after being prosecuted for running for election after receiving an infringement notice. The appellant, Watson, was the person who had brought the prosecution. The main issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of Victoria was correct in quashing the conviction on the basis that the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution.

The High Court considered whether the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that imposed a criminal penalty for running for election after receiving an infringement notice were valid. The court examined the validity of the provisions in light of section 7 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which provides that the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to the government of the Commonwealth and of the states. The court also considered whether the provisions were within the scope of the Constitution's power to make laws for the government of the states.

The High Court held that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act were valid and consistent with the Constitution. The court found that the provisions were within the scope of the Constitution's power to make laws for the government of the states, as they were necessary for the conduct of elections and the maintenance of the integrity of the electoral process. The court also held that the provisions did not infringe upon the autonomy of the states, as they were not inconsistent with the exercise of state legislative power. The High Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

The High Court's decision in Ireland v Watson clarified the scope of the Commonwealth Parliament's power to make laws for the government of the states. The court confirmed that the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws that are necessary for the conduct of elections and the maintenance of the integrity of the electoral process, even if those laws have an incidental effect on state legislative power. The decision also clarified the limits of the states' autonomy in relation to the conduct of elections. The High Court's decision in this case is an important precedent for future cases involving the interaction between Commonwealth and state legislative powers in the context of elections.

Orders