Isidoro v May - [2000] WASCA 152

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: ISIDORO -v- MAY [2000] WASCA 152

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 24 MAY 2000

DELIVERED : 1 JUNE 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1024 of 2000

BETWEEN: LEONIE MAREE ISIDORO
Appellant
AND
ALAN PHILIP MAY
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Road traffic offence - Charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Whether Magistrate drew correct conclusions - Onus of proof and standard of proof - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1975, s 59A

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms A C Johnson
Respondent: Mr B C Hocking

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Crown Solicitor
Respondent: Bruce Hocking

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

Becker v Roberts, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970686; 12 December 1997
Harling v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
McDiven v Paull (1990) 12 MVR 225

Case(s) also cited:

Brickwood v Phillips (1990) 13 MVR 513
Geneff v Townshend [1970] WAR 20
Laitt v Magden (1992) 16 MVR 72
McBride v R [1966] 115 CLR 44
McLuckie v Williams (1995) 22 MVR 265
Morton v Bevis (1993) 19 MVR 181

MILLER J: The respondent was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Albany with the offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. It was alleged that on 15 January 1999 at Albany he had driven a motor vehicle on Albany Highway in a manner that was, having regard to all the circumstances, dangerous to the public or to any person and had thereby caused bodily harm to one Paul Richard Davies. The case came before Mr R M McM Glynn SM in the Court of Petty Sessions at Albany on 24 January 2000 when the respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution case against him consisted primarily of the evidence of Mr Davies, who testified that about 12.20pm on 15 January he was travelling north on the Albany Highway, having just rounded the roundabout at the top of York Street. He was riding a Suzuki road/trail bike and he said that after coming off the roundabout he was in the right‑hand lane of Albany Highway where he crossed a speed hump at a speed of about 35kmh and then travelled on along Albany Highway with a view to crossing into the left‑hand lane to pull into the carpark of a dental surgery. He observed a blue utility in front of him in the left‑hand lane travelling at about the same speed as he was and he was in the process of slowing down to change lanes when the next thing he knew there was a car right in front of him. He tried to turn to the right to avoid it but was unable to do so. According to his evidence he had then travelled about 60 metres from the roundabout. There was no dispute that Mr Davies suffered bodily harm as he was thrown across the bonnet of the vehicle and landed on…

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 Isidoro v May

Details

AGLC: Isidoro v May [2000] WASCA 152
Case: [2000] WASCA 152
Decision Date: 1 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Isidoro v May involved a dispute regarding a charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The defendant, Isidoro, was accused of driving in a manner that was dangerous and resulted in harm to another individual, May. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the Magistrate had correctly interpreted the evidence and drawn the appropriate conclusions regarding the defendant's liability. The case hinged on the onus of proof and the standard of proof required to establish the defendant's guilt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had erred in finding the defendant guilty. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the Magistrate had correctly applied the principles of criminal law concerning the onus and standard of proof. The defendant argued that the evidence did not meet the necessary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Magistrate had failed to properly consider the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

The court reviewed the evidence presented and the Magistrate's findings. It was determined that the Magistrate had correctly applied the principles of criminal law and had reached a conclusion that was supported by the evidence. The court found that the defendant's argument regarding the standard of proof was without merit, as the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the Magistrate had drawn the correct conclusions based on the facts of the case.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction of the defendant, Isidoro, for the charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied the principles of criminal law and had reached a conclusion that was supported by the evidence presented. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders