Lodge v Magorian

Case [2012] WASCA 90

LODGE -v- MAGORIAN [2012] WASCA 90



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASCA 90
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACR:98/201113 FEBRUARY 2012
Coram:McLURE P
BUSS JA
MAZZA JA		23/04/12
24Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
Conviction and other orders made by primary judge set aside
Acquittal by magistrate reinstated
Sentence imposed by magistrate set aside
A
PDF Version
Parties:MATTHEW JAMES LODGE
DAVID HUGH MAGORIAN

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Appeal against conviction
Dangerous driving causing death
Construction of s 59(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Relevance of intoxication
Whether driving whilst intoxicated, without more, sufficient to establish dangerous driving
Whether fact of intoxication, in combination with other driving behaviour, capable of rendering otherwise unexceptionable driving dangerous
Whether denial of procedural fairness in single judge appeal

Legislation:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59, s 59(1)(a), s 59(1)(b), s 59B, s 59B(5), s 59B(6), s 71, s 71(1), s 71(3)

Case References:
Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; (1992) 173 CLR 572
Krakouer v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 81
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
McBride v The Queen [1966] HCA 22; (1966) 115 CLR 44
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56
Pfeiffer v The Queen (Unreported, SACCA, 11 December 1990)
R v F (1957) SR (NSW) 543
R v Ganderton (Unreported, NSWCCA, 17 September 1998)
R v Greenham (1997) 25 MVR 495
R v Kroon (1990) 52 A Crim R 15
R v Leaf-Milham (1987) 47 SASR 499
R v Woodward (2001) 33 MVR 536
Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LODGE -v- MAGORIAN [2012] WASCA 90 CORAM : McLURE P
    BUSS JA
    MAZZA JA
HEARD : 13 FEBRUARY 2012 DELIVERED : 23 APRIL 2012 FILE NO/S : CACR 98 of 2011
    CACR 195 of 2011
BETWEEN : MATTHEW JAMES LODGE
    Appellant

    AND

    DAVID HUGH MAGORIAN
    Respondent



(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : CACR 98 of 2011

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MURRAY J

Citation : MAGORIAN -v- LODGE [2011] WASC 147

File No : SJA 1010 of 2011

For File No : CACR 195 of 2011

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY

File No : PE 11778 of 2010


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Dangerous driving causing death - Construction of s 59(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Relevance of intoxication - Whether driving whilst intoxicated, without more, sufficient to establish dangerous driving - Whether fact of intoxication, in combination with other driving behaviour, capable of rendering otherwise unexceptionable driving dangerous - Whether denial of procedural fairness in single judge appeal

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A


Road Traffic…

Continue reading Lodge v Magorian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lodge v Magorian [2012] WASCA 90
Case
[2012] WASCA 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Lodge v Magorian was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the appellant, Lodge, contested his conviction for dangerous driving causing death. The primary judge had overturned the magistrate's acquittal, convicting Lodge instead. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of section 59(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and the extent to which intoxication contributes to the determination of dangerous driving. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether driving while intoxicated, in and of itself, suffices to establish dangerous driving, or if intoxication must be combined with other driving behaviour to render otherwise acceptable driving dangerous. Additionally, the court considered whether the process of the appeal denied procedural fairness to Lodge.

The court examined the statutory language and the relevant case law, determining that driving while intoxicated is not, by itself, enough to constitute dangerous driving. Instead, it is the combination of intoxication with other driving behaviour that can render driving dangerous. The court found that the primary judge had placed undue emphasis on the appellant's intoxication and had not sufficiently considered the totality of the driving behaviour. The court further held that the single judge appeal process did not afford procedural fairness to the appellant, as it did not allow for the presentation of evidence or arguments in a manner akin to a trial. The court concluded that the primary judge's approach was flawed and that the appeal process did not meet the standards of procedural fairness.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction made by the primary judge was set aside. The orders made by the primary judge were quashed, and the acquittal by the magistrate was reinstated. The sentence imposed by the magistrate was also set aside. This decision underscores the importance of a balanced interpretation of statutory provisions and the need for procedural fairness in the appeal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Conviction and other orders made by primary judge set aside

Acquittal by magistrate reinstated

Sentence imposed by magistrate set aside

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.