Legal Research
Cases
Johnson v Matthews

Johnson v Matthews

Case [2020] WASC 122 15 April 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   JOHNSON -v- MATTHEWS [2020] WASC 122
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   15 APRIL 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1153 of 2019
BETWEEN:   JAYE JOHNSON
Appellant
AND
JOSHUA MATTHEWS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE M FLYNN
File Number            :   PE 37239 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Confiscation of vehicle following third conviction for driving whilst not authorised to do so - Ownership of vehicle passed to third party prior to the Commissioner of Police serving a notice that he intended to apply for an order that the vehicle be confiscated - Error of law - Failure to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause to the person who purchased the vehicle as to why an order for confiscation should not be made

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)(d), s 40(1)(e)
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 5
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49(1)(a), s 78A, s 80G
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA), s 17(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Confiscation order set aside and application for confiscation remitted to Magistrates Court

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No appearance
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Busby v Burrow [2012] WASC 58
Li v Skala [2018] WASC 353
Moors v Burke [1919] HCA 32; (1919) 26 CLR 265
Ninyette v Jones [2018] WASC 317; (2018) 86 MVR 186
Rodi v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 81; (2017) 51 WAR 96
Scoby-Smith v Lang [2019] WADC 57
Suleiman v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 26
Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; (2002) 213 CLR 1
Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53; (1999) 201 CLR 351

SMITH J:

The background to the appeal, the ground of appeal and the result

On 22 August 2019, the appellant was convicted of a third impounding offence, namely driving without authority pursuant to s 49(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (the RT Act), whilst driving a Mitsubishi Lancer, registration no 1CUI505 (the vehicle).
Following the conviction, the Commissioner of Police served the appellant, by post, a document titled 'Section 80G Notice of Intention' under cover of a letter dated 26 August 2019.[1] The letter stated that the attached notice of intention was notice (that the Commissioner intended to) to make an application to a court for an order to confiscate/further impound her vehicle. The letter also contained a statement that upon receiving this notice of intention, 'you must not do a restricted act which means you must not … [d]ispose of any interest (sell or dispose of the vehicle) that you have in the vehicle…'.[2]
[1] Affidavit of Jaye Johnson, sworn 7 February 2020, Attachment A.
[2] Affidavit of Jaye Johnson, sworn 7 February 2020.

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 Johnson v Matthews

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Matthews [2020] WASC 122
Case: [2020] WASC 122
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v Matthews involved the appellant, Johnson, contesting the confiscation of his vehicle by the Commissioner of Police under the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). Johnson had been convicted three times for driving without proper authorisation, triggering the legal mechanism for vehicle confiscation. Before the Commissioner could apply for a confiscation order, Johnson had sold the vehicle to Matthews, a third party. The central issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's failure to provide Matthews with an opportunity to be heard on the application for confiscation constituted an error of law that nullified the confiscation order.

The court had to determine if the statutory scheme required the Commissioner to notify and allow the new owner, Matthews, to present a case as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated. This involved an interpretation of the statutory provisions and an examination of the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of procedural fairness. The court considered whether the statutory process adequately safeguarded the interests of individuals who acquire vehicles under such circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court held that the Commissioner's failure to notify Matthews and provide him with an opportunity to be heard indeed constituted an error of law. This procedural oversight contravened the principles of natural justice, which demand that an individual be given a fair chance to respond to adverse actions affecting their interests. Consequently, the court ruled that the confiscation order was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirement to allow the new owner to be heard. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions that significantly impact private rights.

The court ordered that the confiscation order be set aside and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for a new application process that included providing Matthews with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This ruling ensures that the statutory provisions are applied in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice, protecting the rights of individuals who may acquire vehicles from those subject to confiscation orders.

Orders