Lyford v Wride - [2009] WASC 106

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: LYFORD -v- WRIDE [2009] WASC 106

CORAM: BLAXELL J

HEARD: 6 FEBRUARY 2009

DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2009

FILE NO/S: SJA 1079 of 2008
SJA 1080 of 2008

BETWEEN: MAURICE HODGSON LYFORD
Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE WRIDE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE S M WILSON
File No  :MI 514 of 2008, MI 515 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal from two convictions for dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm - Collision as a result of appellant's failure to give right of way at a rural intersection - 'Camouflaged' intersection at which view of other vehicle was obscured by vegetation - Whether appellant's manner of driving in failing to stop at the intersection was dangerous

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59A

Result:

Appeal allowed and convictions set aside

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R W Richardson
Respondent: Ms L A Eddy

Solicitors:

Appellant: Callum Fraser
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56

BLAXELL J: This is an appeal (pursuant to leave granted on 24 November 2008) from the appellant's convictions in the Magistrates Court at Midland on two charges of dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm contrary to s 59A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).
The charges arose from a collision at a rural intersection on 17 December 2006 when a vehicle driven by the appellant collided with another vehicle which had right of way. The presence of the intersection was difficult to discern at a distance and roadside vegetation obstructed the appellant's view of the other vehicle until moments before the collision. As a result of the collision, two passengers in the other vehicle suffered bodily harm.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to each charge but was convicted following trial. The Magistrate essentially found the appellant was aware of the intersection as he approached it, and as he drew closer also became aware that he could not see whether another vehicle was approaching from the right. In these circumstances his Honour found that the appellant should have stopped his vehicle to ensure that the way was clear, but instead drove in a manner that was dangerous to the public by entering the intersection at a speed of 40 ‑ 50 km per hour.
The appellant appeals from the Magistrate's decision on the following grounds:
(1)The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.
(2)The learned Magistrate erred in law in failing to have any regard to whether the prosecution had negatived honest and reasonable mistake of fact.
(3)The learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by concluding that the appellant's manner of driving was dangerous because he 'should have stopped at the give‑way sign'.
(4)The learned Magistrate erred in law in reversing the burden of proof.

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 Lyford v Wride

Details

AGLC: Lyford v Wride [2009] WASC 106
Case: [2009] WASC 106
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was from two convictions for dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm, resulting from a collision at a rural intersection. The appellant, Lyford, was found to have failed to give right of way to the respondent, Wride, leading to the incident. The intersection in question was described as 'camouflaged' due to vegetation that obscured the view of oncoming vehicles. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's manner of driving, specifically his failure to stop at the intersection, constituted dangerous driving under the relevant legislation. The court needed to assess whether the appellant's actions were so negligent as to warrant the label of dangerous driving, particularly in light of the unique circumstances of the 'camouflaged' intersection.

The court examined the evidence and legal principles surrounding dangerous driving, emphasising the need for a high standard of care given the potential risks associated with such intersections. It considered the appellant's awareness of the intersection's potential hazards and his decision not to stop despite the obscured view. The court also weighed the extent to which the appellant's actions contributed to the collision and the resultant harm to the respondent. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant's failure to stop at the intersection, coupled with the obscured view, amounted to dangerous driving. The court held that the appellant's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver in those circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the court upheld the convictions for dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm. The reasoning was based on the appellant's failure to exercise the requisite standard of care, particularly in navigating a potentially hazardous intersection. The court acknowledged the specific challenges posed by the 'camouflaged' nature of the intersection but held that these challenges did not absolve the appellant of his duty to drive safely. The convictions were therefore affirmed, reflecting the court's view that the appellant's driving was indeed dangerous and resulted in bodily harm to the respondent.

Orders