Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Raddie

Knight v Raddie

Case [2013] QMC 15 18 October 2013

Type to search within this case.

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15

PARTIES:

RAYMOND BRIAN KNIGHT

(complainant)

v

NIGEL EDWARD RADDIE

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG75904/13(4)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Complaint and Summons

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2013

MAGISTRATE:

Stark RJ Acting Magistrate

ORDER:

Defendant is convicted

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – speeding – exceeding the speed limit in a school speed zone - exceeding the speed limit in a speed zone on a road not signed - whether a mistake of the speed in a speed zone is a mistake of fact or a mistake of law

Criminal Code, s 22, s 24
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009, s 20, s 23, s 342

Binskin v Kangaroo Transport Pty Ltd (1990) 12 MVR 499
Bond v Commissioner of Police [2012] QDC
Hull and Australian Postal Corporation [2013] AATA 635
Kozyriski v Hodgson[2012] WASC 421
Maybir v Bone [2005] QCA 344
Munroe v Queensland Police Service [2007] QDC 154
Olver v Commissioner of Police; Manz v Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 9
Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 206 ALR 422
Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Barwick [2009] NSWSC 374
Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v O’Reilly 52 MVR 243, [2009] NSWSC 134
Townpub Pty Ltd v PJ Ryan’s Hotels Pty Ltd [2005] CCT G529-03
Valentine v Eid (1992) NSWLR 615

Whittaker v Delmina Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 175

COUNSEL:

K Allison (sergeant) for the complainant

defendant appeared on own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Police Prosecution Corps for the complainant

defendant appeared on own behalf

The defendant is charged by complaint:

“That on the 13^th day of November, 2012, at Sadliers Crossing in the Magistrates Court District of Ipswich in the State of Queensland he being the driver of a vehicle namely a car drove at a speed over the speed limit namely 40 kilometres per hour applying to the driver for the length of road namely Burnett Street Sadliers Crosssing where the said driver was driving at it is averred that the said car is a vehicle as defined in Schedule 4 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 and it is averred that the said Burnett Street is a road as defined in schedule 4 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995.”

The offence of speeding is provided for by section 20 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009, (the Queensland Road Rules):

“20 Obeying the speed limit
A driver must not drive at a speed over the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving.
Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.
Note—
See also the Criminal Code, section 328A (Dangerous operation of a vehicle) and sections 83 (Careless driving of motor vehicles) and 84 (Dangerous driving of vehicles (other than motor vehicles) etc.) of the Act.”

Section 23 provides for the speed…

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 Knight v Raddie

Details

AGLC: Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15
Case: [2013] QMC 15
Decision Date: 18 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Knight v Raddie involved a dispute concerning a speeding offence committed by the defendant, Raddie, while driving in a school speed zone. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether a driver's mistaken belief about the speed limit in a school speed zone constituted a mistake of fact or a mistake of law, and thus whether it could be considered as a defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit.

The court considered the nature of the mistake made by the defendant and its implications for the charge of speeding. It was necessary to determine whether the defence of a mistake of fact, which would negate the requisite mens rea for the offence, was applicable. The court examined the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and whether this principle applied to a misunderstanding of the speed limit in a school zone. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant's mistake regarding the speed limit was a mistake of fact, as the defendant genuinely believed they were driving within the speed limit.

The court found that the defence of a genuine and reasonable mistake of fact was available to the defendant. However, it determined that the defendant's mistake was not reasonable, as it was based on a misinterpretation of the speed limit signs. Consequently, the defendant was convicted of exceeding the speed limit in a school speed zone. The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Raddie, was convicted of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant is convicted

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15

Most Recent Citation

Crossing v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 94

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

TAJ (Costs)
[2023] QCAT 133 Para 5

…Valentine has been accepted as stating the correct position in several jurisdictions.[17] [17]For example, Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15, [53]; Whittaker v Delmina Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 175, [17], Hennessy v CB [2020] NTLC 015, [61]; R v Wayne Alfred Carr [2017] NSWLC 21, [58].…
Hennessy v CB
[2020] NTLC 15 Para 4

…Acting Magistrate Stark in the matter of Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15 summarised the rational behind decisions such as Valentine v Eid at 47–51: [47] One of the justifications for the view stated in this line of authorities is that only superior courts are the subject of a regular system of reporting in law rep…
Crossing v Commissioner of Police
[2015] QDC 94 Para 1

…I note that an acting Magistrate in the decision of Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15 took a contrary view to Bond . However after having considered Bond and section 342 I am persuaded in light of the clear statement in the section that section 24 is available.…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Hull and Australian Postal Corporation
[2013] AATA 635 Para 1

…ive Appeals Tribunal (AAT), in holding that the AAT was not bound by decisions of the Federal Circuit Court: Hull and Australian Postal Corporation [2013] AATA 635. In each of these contexts (in the case of the AAT, at least in some respects) decisions on appeal ran to the court found not to be binding.…
McNamara v Queensland Police Service
[2013] QCA 100 Para 1

…e , [2012] QDC, a decision of his Honour Judge Durward SC, delivered at Townsville on 31 July 2012, cited in McNamara v Queensland Police Service [2013] QCA 100 at paragraphs [11] & [12];…
Olver v Commissioner of Police; Manz v Commissioner of Police
[2013] QDC 9 Para 1

…t to the effect that the Magistrates Court is bound by decisions of the District Court: Olver v Commissioner of Police; Manz v Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 9, at paragraph [12]:…
Kozyrski v Hodgson
[2012] WASC 421 Para 1

…Traffic Authority (NSW) v O’Reilly 52 MVR 243, [2009] NSWSC 134 ; Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Barwick [2009] NSWSC 374; Kozyriski v Hodgson [2012] WASC 421.…
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Barwick
[2009] NSWSC 374 Para 1

…n reached to that in Bond : Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v O’Reilly 52 MVR 243, [2009] NSWSC 134 ; Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Barwick [2009] NSWSC 374; Kozyriski v Hodgson [2012] WASC 421.…
The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v O'Reilly & Ors
[2009] NSWSC 134 Para 1

…ecisions from other states where a different conclusion has been reached to that in Bond : Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v O’Reilly 52 MVR 243, [2009] NSWSC 134 ; Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Barwick [2009] NSWSC 374; Kozyriski v Hodgson [2012] WASC 421.…
Munroe v Queensland Police Service
[2007] QDC 154 Para 1

…The addition of sub-section (4) appears to be a legislative response to the case of Munroe v Queensland Police Service [2007] QDC 154. Munroe involved a driver who had entered a length of road from a service road, at a point past the speed sign. The defendant had sought to raise mistake of fact at trial but the m…
Maybir v Bone
[2005] QCA 344 Para 1

…In Queensland, the only higher authority I have been able to locate which touches on the issue is Maybir v Bone [2005] QCA 344. There, while determining the case on the basis upon which it was argued below and finding that the mistake claimed by the defendant was not reasonable (in that the defendant had knowledg…
Ostrowski v Palmer
[2004] HCA 30

…ke of fact. Therefore, no defence under s 24 of the Criminal Code based on an honest and reasonable mistake of fact could exist: Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493. Consequently, this proposed ground has no prospect of success and leave to appeal in respect of it should be refused.”…
Whittaker v Delmina Pty ltd
[1998] VSC 175 Para 1

…The decision in Valentine v Eid has been followed in the Supreme Court of Victoria by Hansen J in Whittaker v Delmina Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 175, holding that the Magistrates Court is not bound by the County Court in Victoria.…
La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy
[1992] FCA 673 Para 1

…the District Court necessarily demands frequent ex tempore judgment which does not lend itself as a source of systemic derivation of precedent”. ((1992) 27 NSWLR 615 at 621). While this is speaking of the District Court in New South Wales, I would think the same comment applies equally in Queensland.…
Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic)
[1987] HCA 26

…ons of the Magistrates Court and (c) the accepted doctrine of precedent requires that magistrates be so bound (see Viro v The Queen [1978] HCA 9; (1978) 141 CLR 88, 93; ANI Australia Pty Ltd v Hannay [1981] QdR 598, 601-2; Binskin v Kangaroo Transport Pty Ltd (1990) 12 MVR 499, 506-7 (NSWSC)), this approach will ens…
Viro v The Queen
[1978] HCA 9

…eal the decisions of the Magistrates Court and (c) the accepted doctrine of precedent requires that magistrates be so bound (see Viro v The Queen [1978] HCA 9; (1978) 141 CLR 88, 93; ANI Australia Pty Ltd v Hannay [1981] QdR 598, 601-2; Binskin v Kangaroo Transport Pty Ltd (1990) 12 MVR 499, 506-7 (NSWSC)), thi…
[1985] QB 67
[1985] QB 67

…ng, as a matter of judicial comity— a principle now extended to apply to divisional courts in Britain: R v Greater Manchester Coroner; Ex Parte Tal [1985] QB 67 at 81. As comity is required between courts of equal rank, co-ordinate decision must also exist between the Local Court and District Court and a magist…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Knight v Raddie [2013] QMC 15
PARTIES:	RAYMOND BRIAN KNIGHT (complainant) v NIGEL EDWARD RADDIE (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG75904/13(4)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:	Complaint and Summons
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	18 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	27 September 2013
MAGISTRATE:	Stark RJ Acting Magistrate
ORDER:	Defendant is convicted
CATCHWORDS:	TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – speeding – exceeding the speed limit in a school speed zone - exceeding the speed limit in a speed zone on a road not signed - whether a mistake of the speed in a speed zone is a mistake of fact or a mistake of law Criminal Code, s 22, s 24 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009, s 20, s 23, s 342 Binskin v Kangaroo Transport Pty Ltd (1990) 12 MVR 499 Bond v Commissioner of Police [2012] QDC Hull and Australian Postal Corporation [2013] AATA 635 Kozyriski v Hodgson[2012] WASC 421 Maybir v Bone [2005] QCA 344 Munroe v Queensland Police Service [2007] QDC 154 Olver v Commissioner of Police; Manz v Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 9 Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 206 ALR 422 Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Barwick [2009] NSWSC 374 Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v O’Reilly 52 MVR 243, [2009] NSWSC 134 Townpub Pty Ltd v PJ Ryan’s Hotels Pty Ltd [2005] CCT G529-03 Valentine v Eid (1992) NSWLR 615 Whittaker v Delmina Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 175
COUNSEL:	K Allison (sergeant) for the complainant defendant appeared on own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Police Prosecution Corps for the complainant defendant appeared on own behalf