LUMLEY -v- THE POLICE [2007] WASC 189

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 189
Case No:	SJA:1017/2007	Heard:	10 AUGUST 2007
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	17/08/07
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTHONY JOSEPH LUMLEY THE POLICE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal and application for leave to appeal Driving without due care and attention Whether error in convicting appellant No point of principle
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 62
Case References:	Cronin v The Queen [2007] WASCA 159 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Geneff v Townsend [1970] WAR 20 Illich v Garvey (2001) 34 MVR 88 Saliba v Shepherd [2006] WASCA 228 Samuels v Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : LUMLEY -v- THE POLICE [2007] WASC 189 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 10 AUGUST 2007 DELIVERED : 17 AUGUST 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1017 of 2007 BETWEEN : ANTHONY JOSEPH LUMLEY

Appellant

AND

THE POLICE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY

File No : PE 46029 of 2006, PE 46030 of 2006

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal and application for leave to appeal - Driving without due care and attention - Whether error in convicting appellant - No point of principle

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 62

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Cronin v The Queen [2007] WASCA 159
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Geneff v Townsend [1970] WAR 20
Illich v Garvey (2001) 34 MVR 88
Saliba v Shepherd [2006] WASCA 228
Samuels v Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300

(Page 3)

1 BEECH J: This is an application for leave to appeal and a hearing of an appeal by Mr Lumley against his conviction in the Magistrates Court of two traffic charges.

2 On 8 February 2007 the appellant was convicted of one charge of driving without due care and attention contrary to s 62 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) ("the RTA") and one charge of failing to give his name and address contrary to s 54(1) of the RTA.

3 The two charges arose from a collision between the Toyota Hi Ace van being driven by the appellant and a vehicle driven by Ms Erin Starky.

4 I will begin by outlining the evidence at trial, which will assist in consideration of the complaints made by the appellant as to his conviction on the two charges.

The evidence at trial

5 Ms Starky was called as a witness by the prosecution. The other witness called by the prosecution…

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 Lumley v The 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: [2007] WASC 189
Decision Date: 17 AUGUST 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lumley v The Police involved an appeal by the defendant against their conviction for driving without due care and attention. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant argued that there was an error in the conviction process. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with whether there had been any procedural errors or misapplication of law by the lower court that led to an unjust outcome for the appellant.

The court considered the arguments presented and examined the evidence and proceedings from the original trial. The court found that there was no substantive error in the original conviction, nor any point of legal principle that would warrant a reevaluation of the outcome. The evidence presented in the original trial was sufficient to support the conviction, and the procedural steps taken were in accordance with the law.

Based on the court's analysis, it was determined that the appeal did not present a case of such importance or with such significant legal implications that it warranted further review. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed as it did not establish any grounds for allowing an appeal against the conviction. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.