Magorian v Lodge - [2011] WASC 147

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

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

CORAM: MURRAY J

HEARD: 18 MAY 2011

DELIVERED : 31 MAY 2011

FILE NO/S: SJA 1010 of 2011

BETWEEN: DAVID HUGH MAGORIAN
Appellant
AND
MATTHEW JAMES LODGE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY
Citation  :MAGORIAN -v- LODGE
File No  :PE 11778 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Dangerous driving causing death - Interpretation of statutory scheme - Lack of causation defence

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59, s 59B

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms S Linton
Respondent: Mr K S Pratt

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: Paiker & Overmeire

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

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56
WA v Gibbs [2009] WASCA 7
WA v Olive [2011] WASCA 25
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

MURRAY J: The appellant, a police officer, charged the respondent with the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death. It was alleged that on 26 July 2009, on Stirling Highway, Claremont, the respondent drove his motor vehicle in a manner that was, having regard to all the circumstances, dangerous to the public or to any person, and that he was involved in an incident occasioning the death of a Mr Smith, contrary to s 59(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (the Act).
The respondent pleaded not guilty, and the trial was conducted in the Magistrates Court on 10 and 11 January 2011. On 12 January, his Honour gave his decision ex tempore. The reasons are well expressed. His Honour cites authority. It is clear that his Honour expended considerable effort in the preparation of his reasons. I shall return to them in due course. It is sufficient, at this stage, to note that the charge was dismissed and the respondent was acquitted.
This is a prosecution appeal. The grounds of appeal, as substituted at the hearing, are:
1.The learned Magistrate erred in fact in finding that the respondent's blood alcohol concentration was 0.12% at the time of the crash, given the finding was against the weight of the evidence given at the trial.
2.The learned Magistrate erred in law when determining whether the prosecution had established to the requisite standard that the manner of the respondent's driving was, in all the circumstances, dangerous to the public, by considering each of the following features of the respondent's driving in isolation rather than the evidence in its entirety:
(a)the respondent's level of alcohol intoxication;
(b)the speed at which the respondent was driving his vehicle immediately prior to the incident; and
(c)the movement of the respondent's vehicle immediately prior to the incident.
3.The learned Magistrate erred in law…

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 Magorian v Lodge

Details

AGLC: Magorian v Lodge [2011] WASC 147
Case: [2011] WASC 147
Decision Date: 31 MAY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Magorian v Lodge involved the appellant, Magorian, who was charged with dangerous driving causing the death of another person. The respondent, Lodge, was the deceased's family member who brought the proceedings on their behalf. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether a particular defence was available to the appellant under the statutory scheme governing dangerous driving causing death.

The central legal issue was whether the statutory provision regarding dangerous driving causing death permitted the defence of lack of causation. The appellant argued that the statutory scheme did not explicitly exclude the defence of lack of causation, and thus it should be available to him. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the statutory provisions were intended to cover all potential defences, and the absence of any explicit mention of lack of causation meant that it was not permissible.

The High Court found that the statutory scheme did not preclude the defence of lack of causation. The court reasoned that the absence of an explicit exclusion of such a defence did not necessarily mean that it was excluded. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting statutes in a manner that gave effect to the legislature's intention, and noted that the statutory provisions were intended to address the dangers posed by dangerous driving. However, the court also recognised that the defence of lack of causation was a fundamental principle of criminal law, and should not be excluded unless there was a clear legislative intent to do so. As such, the court held that the defence of lack of causation was available to the appellant in this case.

The High Court's decision in this case clarified the availability of the defence of lack of causation in cases of dangerous driving causing death. The court's interpretation of the statutory scheme underscored the importance of a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, and highlighted the need to consider the broader context and objectives of the legislation. The decision also reinforced the principle that fundamental defences such as lack of causation should not be excluded unless there is a clear legislative intent to do so. Ultimately, the court's ruling in this case provided guidance to practitioners and the broader legal community on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing dangerous driving causing death.

Orders