Lawn v Police - [2013] SASC 67

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
LAWN v POLICE
[2013] SASC 67
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue
10 May 2013
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED
The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of failing to give way. The Magistrate found that he attempted to change lanes in circumstances in which there was insufficient space to do so and thereby failed to give way. The appellant contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and (2) the Magistrate gave no or inadequate reasons for finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:
1. If the Magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the police officers' evidence was honest, reliable and accurate and rejected the appellant's evidence as reasonably possible, there was evidence capable of proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt (at [20]-[23]).
2. The Magistrate did not explicitly reject the appellant's evidence, accept the police officers' evidence beyond reasonable doubt, make findings of fact or identify or give reasons for conclusions (at [31]-[35]).
3. Appeal allowed, conviction set aside and matter remitted to Magistrates Court for new trial (at [36]).
Road Traffic Act 1956 (SA) section 80; Australian Road Rules rule 148, referred to.
Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; (2012) 86 ALJR 1086, applied.
R v Beard [2004] SASC 411, discussed.
Papps v Police [2000] SASC 183; (2000) 77 SASR 210; R v Dennis [2010] SASC 69; (2010) 202 A Crim R 453; R v Keyte [2000] SASC 382; (2000) 77 SASR 210, considered.

LAWN v POLICE
[2013] SASC 67
Magistrates Appeal Criminal:
BLUE J:

The appellant/defendant, Mr Lawn, was convicted on 6 November 2012 by a Magistrate of failing to give way.[1]
[1] Road Traffic Act 1959 (SA) s 80 and Rule 148 of the Australian Road Rules.
Mr Lawn appeals against the conviction on the ground that the finding of guilt was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. Mr Lawn contends that:
1. the Magistrate erred by failing to give reasons for finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt;
2. there was insufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Background facts
Grand Junction Road at Northfield runs east-west. It generally comprises three lanes in each carriageway separated by a median strip.
Hampstead Road/Briens Road at Northfield runs north-south. It generally comprises two lanes in each carriageway.
Grand Junction Road intersects Hampstead Road/Briens Road at Northfield. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. Immediately approaching the intersection from the west, Grand Junction Road comprises four eastbound lanes. The left-hand lane is a dedicated left-hand turning lane and the right-hand lane is a dedicated right-hand turning…

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 Lawn v Police

Details

AGLC: Lawn v Police [2013] SASC 67
Case: [2013] SASC 67
Decision Date: 10 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Lawn appeals against his conviction for a traffic offence, arguing that the finding of guilt was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. He contends that the Magistrate erred by not providing reasons for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court must determine whether the Magistrate's failure to give reasons constitutes an error of law that warrants an appeal and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court examined Mr Lawn's second contention first, as it provides context for the adequacy of the Magistrate's reasons. Mr Lawn argued that the police evidence was consistent with his account and that the Commodore driver accelerated towards him as a signal of annoyance. However, the court found that the police officers' evidence was inconsistent with Mr Lawn's account. The officers testified that the traffic in their vicinity was moving at approximately the same speed as their own vehicle, which contradicted Mr Lawn's claim that the Commodore accelerated from a standstill. Additionally, the officers' evidence suggested that Mr Lawn left the lane change manoeuvre until it was too late to implement safely or to give way to the Commodore. The court rejected Mr Lawn's argument that the obligation to give way ceased once he commenced to move into the No 2 lane, as it was not supported by the evidence.

The court concluded that Mr Lawn's first contention was valid, as the Magistrate did not explicitly reject his evidence, accept the police officers' evidence beyond reasonable doubt, make findings of fact, or identify or give reasons for conclusions. Given that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the lack of reasons provided by the Magistrate, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for a new trial.

Orders:

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The conviction is set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court for a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held:

1. If the Magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the police officers' evidence was honest, reliable and accurate and rejected the appellant's evidence as reasonably possible, there was evidence capable of proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt (at [20]-[23]).

2. The Magistrate did not explicitly reject the appellant's evidence, accept the police officers' evidence beyond reasonable doubt, make findings of fact or identify or give reasons for conclusions (at [31]-[35]).

3. Appeal allowed, conviction set aside and matter remitted to Magistrates Court for new trial (at [36]).

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Lawn appeals against the conviction on the ground that the finding of guilt was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. Mr Lawn contends that:1. the Magistrate erred by failing to give reasons for finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt;2. there was insufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.Background facts Grand Junction Road at Northfield runs east-west. It generally comprises three lanes in each carriageway separated by a median strip. Hampstead Road/Briens Road at Northfield runs north-south. It generally comprises two lanes in each carriageway. Grand Junction Road intersects Hampstead Road/Briens Road at Northfield. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. Immediately approaching the intersection from the west, Grand Junction Road comprises four eastbound lanes. The left-hand lane is a dedicated left-hand turning lane and the right-hand lane is a dedicated right-hand turning lane. The middle two lanes are dedicated straight-ahead lanes. For vehicles travelling eastwards along Grand Junction Road approaching the Briens Road intersection, the three normal lanes diverge in the following manner:1. The left-hand lane (“No 1 lane”) becomes a turn left only lane for vehicles turning left into Briens Road.2. The middle lane (“No 2 lane”) becomes the left-most straight-ahead lane continuing through the intersection.3. The right-hand lane (“No 3 lane”) becomes the right-most straight-ahead lane continuing through the intersection. 4. A new lane further to the right (“No 4 lane”) diverging out of No 3 lane becomes a turn right only lane for vehicles turning right into Hampstead Road. On 8 November 2011, a police constable and probationary constable were travelling in a police car east on Grand Junction Road approaching the Briens Road intersection. The constable was driving and the probationary constable was in the front passenger seat. They were driving in No 3 lane. A white Commodore was travelling in No 2 lane. Mr Lawn was travelling in his Skyline in No 1 lane. The police constable intended to and did drive through the Briens Road intersection in No 3 lane. The driver of the Commodore apparently intended to and did drive through the intersection in the No 2 lane. Mr Lawn intended, if he could, to change lanes from No 1 lane into No 2 lane so that he could pass through the intersection (and, if he could not, to turn left into Briens Road and then return via Briens Road to Grand Junction Road travelling east). The constable and probationary constable each gave evidence at trial that their vehicle was travelling at about 60 km/h as they approached the intersection. They each observed generally that the vehicles in the two lanes adjacent to them and the vehicles in front of them were all travelling at about the same speed as their own vehicle. They each gave evidence that they were generally aware of the movements of the traffic around them, but were not focusing on any particular vehicle.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I address Mr Lawn’s second contention first, because it provides the context in which to consider the adequacy of the Magistrate’s reasons.[2] [2] See the approach of the Full Court in R v Keyte [2000] SASC 382; (2000) 78 SASR 68 at [54] and [57] per Doyle CJ (Wicks J agreeing) and [69] per Williams J.Evidence to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt On Mr Lawn’s evidence, at the point at which he overtook the Commodore and then moved into No 2 lane, there was a large gap in front of the Commodore, Mr Lawn was travelling at approximately twice the Commodore's speed (55kph v 30kph) and he moved into the No 2 lane well ahead of the Commodore. On his evidence, there was no failure to give way to the Commodore and the manoeuvre was safe at all times. On his evidence, the only reason the two vehicles ended up in very close proximity was because the Commodore driver deliberately accelerated to catch up with Mr Lawn’s vehicle due to and as a signal of annoyance. Mr Lawn contends that the police evidence was not inconsistent with his own evidence. The police officers were not focusing on the Commodore or the Skyline until the end point, being the point at which the Commodore’s horn sounded and it suddenly braked. The police officers did not know what had happened before that point. They could not negate that Mr Lawn had already safely performed (or largely performed) the overtaking and lane changing manoeuvre, with the Commodore then accelerating to catch up with him as a signal of annoyance.[3][3] Mr Lawn also contends that the obligation to give way ceased once he commenced to move into No 2 lane. This issue does not arise because on his own evidence he gave way at all stages of the lane changing manoeuvre and the police case was that he did not do so at any stage. I reject Mr Lawn’s contention. It was common ground that the police vehicle was approximately three car lengths behind the Commodore at the point at which the Commodore’s horn sounded and it braked suddenly. The police officers both gave evidence that the traffic in their vicinity was all moving at approximately the same speed as their own vehicle. That evidence is inconsistent with the Commodore accelerating from a standing start and then suddenly accelerating towards the Skyline which had already overtaken and was well ahead of the Commodore. In addition, whereas Mr Lawn’s evidence was that he had virtually completed the lane changing manoeuvre at least 50 metres back from the intersection (at which point the Commodore’s horn sounded), both police officers gave evidence that this occurred virtually at the entrance to the intersection, being only a matter of metres before the entrance. Their evidence was that Mr Lawn had still not fully completed the lane changing manoeuvre at that point. If their evidence were accepted, Mr Lawn had left the lane changing manoeuvre until it was too late to implement safely or to give way to the Commodore. Further, on the probationary constable’s evidence, Mr Lawn admitted that he wanted to get across, but the Commodore driver wouldn't let him. Mr Lawn denied that account of the conversation.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Accordingly, Mr Lawn succeeds on his first contention.Conclusion I allow the appeal. I set aside the orders of the Magistrate. I remit the matter to the Magistrates Court for a new trial. I will hear the parties as to any further orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.