LUCAS -v- McPHERSON [2007] WASC 53
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 53 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1108/2006 | 15 FEBRUARY 2007 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 12/03/07 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BENJAMIN MURRAY LUCAS VALERIE IRIS McPHERSON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Dangerous driving causing bodily harm Verdict of acquittal in primary court Role of an appeal court Proper approach in dealing with inferences drawn from findings of fact Whether sufficient weight given to failure to observe warnings Whether findings upon credibility can displace incontrovertible facts Collision could not be characterised as an accident Conviction recorded by appellate court Appeal allowed |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004, s 14 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59A(1)(b) |
Case References: | Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Anikin v Sierra [2004] HCA 64 Becker v Roberts (1997) 27 MVR 193 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Hancock v Cox (1993) 19 MVR 137 Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390 Nesterczuk v Mortimore (1965) 115 CLR 140 Pledge v Roads and Traffic Authority [2004] HCA 13 R v Syme, Reynolds & Williams; Ex parte Page [1970] WAR 153 Van Der Laan v Warchot [2006] WASC 229 Verhoeven v Ninyette (1998) 101 A Crim R 24 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
VALERIE IRIS McPHERSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE V EDWARDS
File No : MI 3829 of 2006
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Verdict of acquittal in primary court - Role of an appeal court - Proper approach in dealing with inferences drawn from findings of fact - Whether sufficient weight given to failure to observe warnings - Whether findings upon credibility can displace incontrovertible facts - Collision could not be characterised as an accident - Conviction recorded by appellate court - Appeal allowed
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004, s 14
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59A(1)(b)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr T C Russell
Respondent : Mr S G Scott
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent : Stables Scott
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Anikin v Sierra [2004] HCA 64
Becker v Roberts (1997) 27 MVR 193
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Devries v Australian National…
Continue reading Lucas v McPHERSON
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lucas v McPHERSON [2007] WASC 53
- Case
- [2007] WASC 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Lucas v McPherson, the defendant was acquitted in the primary court of a charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The defendant appealed the verdict, asserting that the primary court had not properly considered the evidence and failed to sufficiently weigh the fact that the defendant did not observe warnings. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal. The central legal issue was whether the appellate court had correctly identified an error in the primary court’s approach to dealing with inferences drawn from findings of fact, particularly in relation to the credibility of evidence and the weight given to incontrovertible facts.
The court of appeal reviewed the evidence and found that the primary court had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the defendant did not observe warnings. The appellate court held that the collision could not be characterised as an accident, as it was a result of dangerous driving. The court also considered whether the findings upon credibility could displace incontrovertible facts, and concluded that they could not. The appellate court found that the primary court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and the inferences drawn from it. Consequently, the appellate court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.
The court’s reasoning and conclusion highlight the importance of the appellate court’s role in reviewing the primary court’s findings of fact and the weight given to particular evidence. The appellate court’s decision underscores the need for a balanced approach when considering findings of credibility and incontrovertible facts. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder that appellate courts must carefully consider the evidence and the inferences drawn from it, to ensure that justice is served.
The court of appeal reviewed the evidence and found that the primary court had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the defendant did not observe warnings. The appellate court held that the collision could not be characterised as an accident, as it was a result of dangerous driving. The court also considered whether the findings upon credibility could displace incontrovertible facts, and concluded that they could not. The appellate court found that the primary court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and the inferences drawn from it. Consequently, the appellate court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.
The court’s reasoning and conclusion highlight the importance of the appellate court’s role in reviewing the primary court’s findings of fact and the weight given to particular evidence. The appellate court’s decision underscores the need for a balanced approach when considering findings of credibility and incontrovertible facts. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder that appellate courts must carefully consider the evidence and the inferences drawn from it, to ensure that justice is served.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.