ITALIANO -v- JAMIESON [2001] WASCA 434

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 434
Case No:	SJA:1157/2001	Heard:	11 DECEMBER 2001
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	11/12/01
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PASQUALIA GUIDONE ITALIANO NEIL ANDREW JAMIESON
Catchwords:	Traffic offences Reckless driving Truck driving to wrong side of the road over considerable distance Oncoming traffic forced off the road Requirement for proof of advertence to likely consequences of dangerous manner of driving
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95 Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158 Mazza v Haime [2000] WASCA 42 McBride v R (1966) 115 CLR 44 R (a child) v Gwynne (1999) 28 MVR 441 Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390 Tate v Arnold (1993) 19 MVR 649 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 Walker v Osborne (1995) 22 MVR 363

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ITALIANO -v- JAMIESON [2001] WASCA 434 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 11 DECEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1157 of 2001 BETWEEN : PASQUALIA GUIDONE ITALIANO

Appellant (Defendant)

AND

NEIL ANDREW JAMIESON

Respondent (Complainant)

Catchwords:

Traffic offences - Reckless driving - Truck driving to wrong side of the road over considerable distance - Oncoming traffic forced off the road - Requirement for proof of advertence to likely consequences of dangerous manner of driving

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Defendant) : Mr R P Camm

Respondent (Complainant) : Ms C L Bathurst

Solicitors:

Appellant (Defendant) : Camm & Associates

Respondent (Complainant) : State Crown Solicitor

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

Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95
Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158
Mazza v Haime [2000] WASCA 42
McBride v R (1966) 115 CLR 44
R (a child) v Gwynne (1999) 28 MVR 441

Case(s) also cited:

Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
Tate v Arnold (1993) 19 MVR 649
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395
Walker v Osborne (1995) 22 MVR 363

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Toodyay, that on 6 May 2001 at Toodyay he wilfully drove a motor vehicle registered number H9995 on a road, namely, Toodyay (sic), in a manner that was, having regard to all the circumstances, dangerous to the public or to any person, contrary to the provisions of s 60(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 ("the Act"). To this charge the appellant pleaded not guilty and the matter was heard in the Court of Petty Sessions at Northam before Mr F Cullen SM on 3 September 2001.…

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 Italiano v Jamieson

Details

AGLC: Italiano v Jamieson [2001] WASCA 434
Case: [2001] WASCA 434
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Italiano v Jamieson involved a dispute concerning traffic offences, specifically whether the appellant had committed reckless driving. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Italiano, had driven his truck on the wrong side of the road over a considerable distance, forcing oncoming traffic off the road. The lower court had found him guilty of reckless driving, a decision Italiano sought to appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether Italiano's actions constituted reckless driving under the Road Safety Act and whether the prosecution had proven the requisite advertence to the likely consequences of his dangerous manner of driving. The court was tasked with examining the evidence and determining whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and applied it to the facts of the case. The appellant argued that his actions were not reckless as he had not adverted to the likely consequences of his driving.

The court considered the elements of the offence of reckless driving, emphasising the need for proof that the driver had adverted to the likely consequences of their dangerous manner of driving. It examined the evidence presented, including the appellant's actions and the impact on oncoming traffic. The court concluded that the lower court had correctly found Italiano guilty of reckless driving, as the appellant's actions demonstrated a clear disregard for the safety of others on the road, fulfilling the requirements of the statute. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.