KOOPU v Lakay - [2006] WASC 120

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: KOOPU -v- LAKAY [2006] WASC 120

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 22 JUNE 2006

DELIVERED : 22 JUNE 2006

FILE NO/S: SJA 1029 of 2006

BETWEEN: HOERA DAVID KOOPU
Appellant
AND
COURTNEY DONALD LAKAY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MR R K BLACK SM
File No  :PE 32321 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Traffic - Driving whilst legally disentitled to hold driver's licence - Section 49(1)(a) and s 49(2)(a)(iii) of Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Whether driver's licence suspended pursuant to licence suspension order under s 19 of Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA) or whether driving whilst legally disentitled to hold driver's licence by reason of s 103 of the Road Traffic Act and reg 11 of the Road Traffic (Drivers Licences) Regulations 1975 (WA) - Whether Magistrate correct in dismissing the charge - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 3(2)(b), s 68
Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 19, s 19(9), s 43
Road Traffic (Drivers Licences) Regulations 1975 (WA), reg 11, reg 12, reg 12A

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49(1)(a), s 49(2)(a)(iii), s 49(2)(a)(iv), s 49(3), s 103, s 103(1), s 103(1)(a), s 103(1)(b) s 103(4), s 103(4)(a), s 103(4)(b) s 103(4a)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Matter remitted to Magistrates Court for rehearing according to law

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms D E Quinlan
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Solicitor
Respondent: No appearance

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

Sevelj v Roffey (2002) 35 MVR 504

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MILLER J: This is an appeal from a decision of Mr R K Black SM delivered in the Magistrates Court at Perth on 9 March 2006 when the learned Magistrate dismissed a charge of driving a motor vehicle without being the holder of the appropriate valid driver's licence and whilst legally disentitled to hold a driver's licence, which had been preferred by the appellant against the respondent.
The respondent had been charged with two offences which were alleged to have arisen on 16 November 2005 at Cottesloe in the State of Western Australia. The first was a charge of wilfully misleading a member of the Western Australian Police Force to which the respondent pleaded guilty and in respect of which he was fined. That conviction is not the subject of appeal.
The second charge was that on 16 November 2005 at Cottesloe the respondent drove a motor vehicle, namely a Toyota Sedan, registration number 8SS‑138 on a road, namely Marine Parade, without being the holder of the appropriate valid driver's licence for that class of vehicle and whilst legally disentitled to hold a driver's licence contrary to the provisions of s 49(1)(a) and s 49(2)(a)(iii) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) ("the Road Traffic Act").
The facts read to the Court were that at 12.21 am on 16 November 2005,…

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 KOOPU v Lakay

Details

AGLC: KOOPU v Lakay [2006] WASC 120
Case: [2006] WASC 120
Decision Date: 22 JUNE 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Koopu v Lakay, the defendant was charged with driving whilst legally disentitled to hold a driver’s licence, an offence under section 49(1)(a) and 49(2)(a)(iii) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The specific dispute arose from whether the defendant's licence was suspended pursuant to a licence suspension order under section 19 of the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA) or whether the defendant was driving whilst legally disentitled under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act and regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Drivers Licences) Regulations 1975 (WA). The case was heard and determined by a Magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the statutory provisions that define the circumstances under which a driver may be considered legally disentitled to hold a licence. The court needed to determine whether the defendant's situation fell within the parameters of section 49(1)(a) and 49(2)(a)(iii) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), or if the relevant statutory framework under the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA) applied instead. The court also had to assess the correctness of the Magistrate's decision in dismissing the charge.

The court examined the statutory language and relevant legislative history to distinguish between the conditions under which a licence might be suspended under the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA) and those under the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The court found that the Magistrate had correctly interpreted the provisions and dismissed the charge on the basis that the defendant's licence was suspended pursuant to the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA) rather than being legally disentitled under the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The court upheld the dismissal of the charge, affirming the Magistrate's decision.

In conclusion, the court confirmed the decision of the Magistrate, upholding the dismissal of the charge against the defendant. The court found that the defendant's driver's licence was suspended pursuant to the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), and not under the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), thereby legally permitting the defendant to drive at the relevant time. The court's decision was thus in favour of the defendant, dismissing the charge as the Magistrate had correctly determined.

Orders