Legal Research
Cases
Marijancevic v Page

Marijancevic v Page

Case [2020] VSC 68 28 February 2020

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Abuse of Process

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2018 01828

JOSEPH MARIJANCEVIC	Plaintiff
v
KIRSTY PAGE, VICTORIA POLICE	First Defendant
and
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant
and
ROADS CORPORATION	Third Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 January and 3 February 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 February 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Marijancevic v Page
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 68

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Plaintiff convicted in Magistrates’ Court of offence of driving while driver licence suspended – Appeal to County Court from conviction and sentence – Appeal withdrawn after subpoena to Roads Corporation set aside – Whether appeal judge should have recused himself for apprehended bias – Whether appeal judge gave self-represented accused a reasonable opportunity to present his case – No error – Proceeding dismissed – Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic), s 84; Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 91.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr DJ Carolan	Simon Legal
For the First Defendant	Mr BL Sonnet	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Third Defendant	Mr MB Peckham	Minter Ellison

HER HONOUR:

On 30 December 2016, Joseph Marijancevic was charged with two offences under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic). The informant for both charges was Senior Constable Kirsty Page. She alleged that, on 23 July 2016, Mr Marijancevic drove a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver licence was suspended, contrary to s 30(1) of the Road Safety Act. He was also charged, under s 59(2), with failing to produce his licence when requested, and stating a false name. The statement of alleged facts in the police brief read:

On Saturday 23rd July 2016, the accused was the driver of a motor vehicle when intercepted by Senior Constable PAGE at a random breath testing site in Churchill Avenue, Braybrook.
The accused was driving a grey Mitsubishi sedan, registration TYX628. Senior Constable PAGE spoke to the driver, who provided a false name, that of his brother, John William HENDERSON. The accused licence was suspended by Vicroads on 10th August 2014 due to a failure to re-sit a knowledge and drive test. The accused refused to speak to S/C PAGE when follow up enquiries were made at the accused’s residential address.

In October 2017, Magistrate Masood found Mr Marijancevic guilty of both charges. He was convicted and fined $400 as part of an aggregate order. There was also an order that he be suspended from driving in Victoria for seven months, effective from 24 October 2017. Mr Marijancevic immediately appealed to the County Court against these orders.

The appeal was listed for hearing on 19 March 2018. On 13 March 2018, Mr Marijancevic issued a subpoena addressed to the Director, Customer Service of the Roads Corporation of Victoria (VicRoads). On 16 March 2018, VicRoads applied for an order that the subpoena be set aside.

The hearing proceeded before Judge Murphy…

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 Marijancevic v Page

Details

AGLC: Marijancevic v Page [2020] VSC 68
Case: [2020] VSC 68
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marijancevic v Page involved the plaintiff challenging the decision of a County Court judge who presided over an appeal against his conviction for driving while his driver’s licence was suspended. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn after a subpoena to the Roads Corporation was set aside. The plaintiff argued that the County Court judge should have recused himself due to apprehended bias and that the self-represented appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The court was required to determine whether the judge should have recused himself and whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to determine the procedural fairness owed to the appellant. It held that there was no basis for the judge to recuse himself due to apprehended bias, as the plaintiff’s argument lacked merit. The court further found that the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case, as the judge provided clear instructions and explanations, and the appellant was afforded the opportunity to address the court. The court found no error in the County Court judge’s handling of the appeal, and the proceeding was dismissed.

The reasoning and outcome of the case highlight the importance of procedural fairness in administrative law and the strict standards required to establish apprehended bias. The court’s decision underscores the need for judges to provide clear instructions and explanations to self-represented parties, while also emphasising the appellant’s responsibility to diligently pursue their appeal.

Orders