Jameson v Police

Case [2016] SASC 5

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

JAMESON v POLICE

[2016] SASC 5

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bampton

11 March 2016

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS

TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - EXCEEDING PRESCRIBED SPEED LIMITS

Mr Jameson elected to be prosecuted in respect of an expiation notice alleging that on 20 October 2014 he drove at a speed of 65 km per hour in an area with a default speed limit of 50 km per hour – a plea of convenience entered – convicted without penalty and ordered to pay court fees of $250, prosecution costs of $100 and a victims of crime levy of $160 – no application pursuant to section 98B(4) of Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) – notice of appeal filed four months out of time seeking permission to withdraw the guilty plea and remission to the Magistrates Court for rehearing – whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether the proposed appeal has merit – whether an application for demerit point reduction would be successful.

Held:

1. Time within which to bring the appeal is extended to 21 December 2015.

2. Appeal allowed for the limited purpose of amending the record to reduce the $250 court fees order to $149 so that Mr Jameson’s total liability is reduced to $409.

3. Otherwise the appeal is dismissed.

Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 281; National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth); Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 98B(4); Magistrates Court (Fees) Regulations 2004 (SA) Sch 2; Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 189A(2); Victims of Crime Act 2001 (SA) s 32(2), s 32(7)(b), referred to.
Moran v Police [2010] SASC 269; Anastasiou v Police [2013] SASC 112; Kuipers-Lloyd v Police [2013] SASC 137; Millington v Police [2015] SASC 52; Police v Young (2012) 114 SASR 567; Siviour-Ashman v Police (2003) 85 SASR 23; Holness v Police [2010] SASC 314; Black v Police [2009] SASC 115; Dycer v Police [2010] SASC 241; Cirillo v Police [2010] SASC 293; Police v Federuzzi [2008] SASC 104, considered.

JAMESON v POLICE
[2016] SASC 5

Magistrates Appeal:   Criminal

BAMPTON J.

  1. Mr Jameson entered a plea of convenience in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court on 20 July 2015 to driving a motor vehicle in excess of the default speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour (km per hour) on South Terrace, Pooraka.

    Background

  2. On 3 December 2014, Mr Jameson was issued with an expiation notice (the notice) in respect of an alleged speeding offence.  The expiation fee was $409 comprising a fine of $349 and victims of crime levy of $60.[1]  The notice stated that “The owner of this vehicle, DES’S CABS PTY LTD, has affirmed in a statutory declaration that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence”.

    [1]    The victims of crime levy payable for a summary offence…

Continue reading Jameson v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jameson v Police [2016] SASC 5
Case
[2016] SASC 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jameson v Police, the appellant, Mr Jameson, appealed against his conviction for exceeding the prescribed speed limit in the Magistrates Court of South Australia. The conviction stemmed from an expiation notice issued on 3 December 2014, alleging that Mr Jameson drove at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone on South Terrace, Pooraka, on 20 October 2014. Mr Jameson elected to be prosecuted and subsequently entered a plea of convenience, resulting in a conviction without penalty but with an order to pay court fees, prosecution costs, and a victims of crime levy. The appeal to the Supreme Court centred on whether the court should grant an extension of time to permit the appeal, and if the proposed appeal had merit, particularly in relation to a potential application for demerit point reduction.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with procedural matters regarding the timeliness of the appeal and the substantive merits of the case. The primary concern was whether the four-month delay in filing the notice of appeal could be justified, warranting an extension under section 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA). Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr Jameson's appeal had any substantive merit, especially regarding the potential for a reduction in demerit points.

In its reasoning, the court noted that Mr Jameson's notice of appeal was filed four months beyond the statutory 21-day period. The court acknowledged that such delays are generally disfavored but recognized that the Supreme Court has the discretion to extend the time for filing an appeal in exceptional circumstances. The court assessed Mr Jameson's reasons for the delay and the merits of his appeal. It concluded that while the delay was substantial, Mr Jameson had provided a reasonable explanation for his tardiness and that the appeal had some merit, particularly in relation to the possibility of reducing demerit points. However, the court found that the primary focus should be on the procedural aspect of the appeal. Consequently, the court granted the extension of time for the appeal but did not substantively address the merits of the appeal regarding demerit points.

The Supreme Court of South Australia ordered that the time for filing the notice of appeal be extended, allowing Mr Jameson's late appeal to proceed. However, no further substantive orders were made regarding the demerit points or any other aspects of the conviction. The court's decision primarily focused on the procedural aspect of the appeal, ensuring that Mr Jameson's right to appeal was upheld despite the significant delay.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Jameson entered a plea of convenience in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court on 20 July 2015 to driving a motor vehicle in excess of the default speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour (km per hour) on South Terrace, Pooraka.Background On 3 December 2014, Mr Jameson was issued with an expiation notice (the notice) in respect of an alleged speeding offence. The expiation fee was $409 comprising a fine of $349 and victims of crime levy of $60.[1] The notice stated that “The owner of this vehicle, DES’S CABS PTY LTD, has affirmed in a statutory declaration that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence”. [1] The victims of crime levy payable for a summary offence that is expiated pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2003 (SA). The notice provides the following warning emboldened on the front page: “DEMERIT POINTS MAY APPLY- SEE REVERSE”. On the reverse under the heading Demerit Points the notice states “Demerit points may apply. For more information contact The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Call Centre on 13 10 84”. The vehicle driven by Mr Jameson on 20 October 2014 was detected by a road safety camera travelling at 65 km per hour on a length of South Terrace, Pooraka governed by a speed limit of 50 km per hour. Mr Jameson elected to be prosecuted for the alleged breach. Accordingly by Complaint and Summons, dated 5 June 2015, Mr Jameson was charged:On the 20TH day of OCTOBER, 2014 at POORAKA in the said State drove a vehicle namely a MOTOR VEHICLE, REGISTRATION NUMBER DES307 on a length of road namely SOUTH TERRACE, in a built up area to which a speed limit sign did not apply, and which was not in a speed-limited area, school zone, or shared zone, at a speed over the default speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour applying to you pursuant to rule 25(2) of the Australian Road Rules.Rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules. It is further alleged you were driving at a speed of about 65 kilometres per hour. This is a summary offence. Mr Jameson appeared unrepresented before a Magistrate on 20 July 2015. Upon entering his guilty plea Mr Jameson was convicted. The Magistrate’s remarks on penalty record:Convicted, dismissed without penalty, you are free to go. There are court fees, everyone has to pay those, the government makes us pay them. The record of outcome for 20 July 2015 records that Mr Jameson was convicted, discharged without penalty and ordered to pay “costs only”. Those costs comprised court fees of $250, prosecution costs of $100 and a victims of crime levy of $160.[2] [2] By electing to be prosecuted the victims of crime levy payable became $160 pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2003 (SA). Pursuant to rule 281 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), Mr Jameson had 21 days to appeal as of right from the Magistrate’s order. As Mr Jameson did not file his notice of appeal until 21 December 2015, he seeks an order extending the time within which to appeal.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

BAMPTON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BAMPTON J

Full text does not contain this section.