Jarvis v Angok - [2009] WASC 342

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: JARVIS -v- ANGOK [2009] WASC 342

CORAM: BLAXELL J

HEARD: 5 AUGUST 2009

DELIVERED : 20 NOVEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: SJA 1056 of 2009

BETWEEN: PETER BEVAN JARVIS
Appellant
AND
AKECH DAU ANGOK
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G LAWRENCE
File No  :JO 2897 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Road traffic offence - Holder of learner's permit driving a vehicle while unaccompanied by a driving instructor - Dismissal of charge of unauthorised driving contrary to s 49 of Road Traffic Act - Whether holder of learner's permit can commit an offence against s 49

Legislation:

Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2008 (WA), reg 49, reg 50
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 42, s 43, s 49, s 50
Road Traffic Amendment Act (No 2) 2007 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms C J Thatcher
Respondent: Ms K J Farley

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent: Legal Aid (WA)

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

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1995) 187 CLR 384
Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 194 CLR 355
Smith v Hope [2001] WASCA 287

BLAXELL J: On 14 November 2008, Akech Dau Angok was stopped by police while driving a motor vehicle. Mr Angok did not hold a motor driver's licence, but he held a learner's permit authorising him to drive while accompanied by a driving instructor. There was no driving instructor in the vehicle, and he was charged with an offence under s 49(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) of driving a motor vehicle while not authorised to do so under Pt IVA of the Act.
Mr Angok pleaded not guilty to this charge on the basis that he had committed a different offence. In that regard, he admitted an offence against s 50 of the Act, of holding a learner's permit and driving a motor vehicle while unaccompanied by a driving instructor. Following a trial on the papers (pursuant to s 66 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004), Magistrate G Lawrence dismissed the charge against Mr Angok. His Honour essentially found that:
(1)The offence under s 49(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act does not apply to the holder of a learner's permit, and
(2)At the time that Mr Angok drove a motor vehicle unaccompanied by a driving instructor, he was authorised to drive under Part IVA of the Act.
The appellant now appeals from the Magistrate's decision on the ground that the above findings were errors of law.

Legislative framework

Part IVA of the Road Traffic Act has the heading 'Authorisation to drive'. Division 2 of that Part (headed 'Driver Licensing') provides for regulations now known as the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2008 (WA). Section 42 requires that those regulations 'together with this Part' provide for a driver licensing scheme under which the Director‑General grants people licences…

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 Jarvis v Angok

Details

AGLC: Jarvis v Angok [2009] WASC 342
Case: [2009] WASC 342
Decision Date: 20 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jarvis v Angok involved a dispute between the respondent, Angok, and the applicant, Jarvis. Jarvis was charged with driving a vehicle while holding a learner's permit and unaccompanied by a driving instructor, contrary to section 49 of the Road Traffic Act. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The respondent sought to overturn the dismissal of the charge by the Magistrates Court, arguing that the statutory language of section 49 was broad enough to encompass the respondent's actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the holder of a learner's permit could be found to have committed an offence against section 49 of the Road Traffic Act when driving unaccompanied by a driving instructor. The respondent contended that the statutory language was sufficiently broad to include the respondent's actions, while the applicant maintained that the statutory language was not broad enough to encompass such a situation. The court had to consider the meaning of the statutory language, the purpose of the legislation, and the context in which it was enacted.

The court held that the statutory language of section 49 was not broad enough to include the respondent's actions. The court found that the language of the provision was specific and did not encompass the situation where a learner driver was unaccompanied by a driving instructor. The court emphasised that the purpose of section 49 was to prevent inexperienced drivers from operating a motor vehicle without proper supervision and instruction, which was not the case here. The court further found that the respondent had not acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the provisions of their learner's permit. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Magistrates Court to dismiss the charge against the respondent.

The court did not make any additional orders. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates Court was upheld. The respondent was not found to have committed an offence under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act.

Orders