Le Poidevin v Police - [2005] SASC 314

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
LE POIDEVIN v POLICE
Judgment of The Honourable Justice White
22 August 2005
TRAFFIC LAW - REGULATION OF TRAFFIC - TRAFFIC SIGNS AND NOTICES
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - GENERALLY
Appeal against conviction and sentence imposed by Magistrate - appellant convicted and fined $60 for entering an intersection at a time when a red traffic light was applicable to his vehicle - contravention of r 59 of the Australian Road Rules - whether Magistrate erred in finding entry against a red traffic light constitutes an absolute offence - held that r 59 of Australian Road Rules creates an absolute obligation - held that even if obligation was not absolute appellant had no reasonable excuse for entering intersection contrary to the red light - whether any irregularity in affidavit tendered by prosecution - no irregularity existed - whether fine imposed by Magistrate together with court fees and costs was manifestly excessive - held that fine imposed was not manifestly excessive and no error in fixing court fees and costs - appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Australian Road Rules Part 6, r 56, r 57, r 58, r 59; Supreme Court Rules (SA) r 3.04, r 97.04; Road Traffic Act 1961 s 75, s 80; Road Traffic (Road Rules – Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1999 (SA), reg 50.1; Road Traffic Regulations 1996 (SA) reg 3.01, referred to.
Strawinski v Hoffrichter (1983) 32 SASR 252; Allen v United Carpet Mills Pty Ltd [1989] VR 323; Franklin v Stacey (1981) 27 SASR 490; August v Fingleton (1964) SASR 22; SA Police v Oakes [1996] SASC 5464, (1996) 85 A Crim R 209; Vandenbergh v Police [2005] SASC 197, applied.
Schmalkuche v Williams (1987) 47 SASR 355; Thomas v Jakacic (1983) 34 SASR 425; R v Kurtzman (1991) 66 CCC (3d) 161, considered.

LE POIDEVIN v POLICE
[2005] SASC 314
Magistrates Appeal

WHITE J: On 12 May 2005 the appellant was found guilty by a Magistrate of the offence of entering an intersection at which a red traffic light applicable to his vehicle was showing, contrary to r 59(1) of the Australian Road Rules (“ARR”). A contravention of the ARR is a summary offence.[1]
[1]Road Traffic Act 1961, s 80; Road Traffic (Road Rules – Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1999 (SA), reg 50.1.
Following his conviction, the Magistrate imposed a fine of $60 and, in addition, ordered the appellant to pay costs and fees totalling $264.
This appeal against conviction and sentence was instituted on 4 July 2005. This was eight days outside the 14 days fixed by SCR 97.04 within which an appeal of this kind must be instituted. The Court may grant an extension of time for the institution of the appeal.[2] The respondent did not oppose the grant of an extension of time to the appellant. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Le Poidevin v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] SASC 314
Decision Date: 22 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Le Poidevin v Police involved an appeal by the appellant against a conviction and sentence imposed by a Magistrate. The appellant was fined $60 for entering an intersection when a red traffic light was applicable to his vehicle, in contravention of rule 59 of the Australian Road Rules. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the Magistrate erred in finding that entry against a red light constituted an absolute offence, whether there was any irregularity in the affidavit tendered by the prosecution, and whether the fine imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court held that rule 59 of the Australian Road Rules created an absolute obligation, and even if it did not, the appellant had no reasonable excuse for entering the intersection contrary to the red light. The Court found no irregularity in the affidavit tendered by the prosecution, and the fine imposed by the Magistrate was not manifestly excessive, and no error in the fixing of the fees or costs. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The legal issues before the Court were whether rule 59 of the Australian Road Rules created an absolute obligation and, if not, whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for entering the intersection against a red light. The Court held that rule 59 created an absolute obligation to stop before entering an intersection when a red traffic light was applicable to the vehicle. The Court noted that the rule was clear and unambiguous, and did not provide for any exceptions or reasonable excuses. The Court also considered whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for entering the intersection, but found that there was no evidence to support such a claim. The Court held that the Magistrate was correct to find that the appellant had contravened rule 59 of the Australian Road Rules.

The Court also considered the appellant's argument that there was an irregularity in the affidavit tendered by the prosecution. The Court found that there was no irregularity in the affidavit, and that it contained all the necessary particulars required by law. The Court noted that the affidavit was sufficient to establish the offence, and that the appellant had been given adequate notice of the charges against him. The Court also considered the appellant's argument that the fine imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the fine of $60 imposed by the Magistrate was quite modest, and was within the maximum penalty for a contravention of rule 59(1) of the Australian Road Rules. The Court noted that the Magistrate had considered the appellant's means and circumstances in imposing the fine, and had not erred in fixing the court fees and costs.

In conclusion, the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The Court found that the Magistrate was correct to find that the appellant had contravened rule 59 of the Australian Road Rules, and that there was no irregularity in the affidavit tendered by the prosecution. The Court also held that the fine imposed by the Magistrate was not manifestly excessive, and that no error in the fixing of the fees or costs had been shown. The Court granted an extension of time for the institution of the appeal, but dismissed the appeal itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Finally, the appellant complained that the fine of $60 imposed by the Magistrate together with the court fees and costs was excessive. The maximum penalty for a contravention of r 59(1) of the ARR was a fine of $1,250. In the circumstances of the offending of the appellant, the fine of $60 imposed by the Magistrate was quite modest. It certainly was not manifestly excessive. Further, no error in the fixing of the fees or costs has been shown.Conclusion For the reasons which I have given above, an extension of time to 4 July 2005 for the institution of the appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.