Marijancevic v Ridsdale - [2008] VSC 125

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 104080 of 2006

JOSEPH MARIJANCEVIC	Appellant
v
JAMES FRANCIS RIDSDALE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17, 18 April 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 April 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Marijancevic v Ridsdale
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 125

---

MAGISTRATES’ COURT – Appeal – Evidence – Defence of honest and reasonable mistaken belief - Whether certificate under s 84 Road Safety Act 1986 need be signed by authorised person or stamped with signature of authorised person - Whether certificate original document – Whether certificate a reproduction document under s 55A Evidence Act 1958 -Whether certificate properly admitted and used as part of evidence – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	The Appellant appeared in person
For the Respondent	Mr A. D. Halse	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

By a notice of appeal filed on 20 December 2006 Mr Marijancevic appeals the whole of the judgment given and orders made by the Magistrates’ Court at Sunshine on 26 November 2006. On that day, the learned magistrate concluded that Mr Marijancevic had committed a breach of s 30(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 on 6 February 2005 by driving whilst his authorisation was suspended. He ordered that Mr Marijancevic be disqualified from driving for a period of three months and imposed a fine of $500. Mr Marijancevic appeals against the whole of the judgment given and the orders made.

The respondent in the appeal is the Informant in relation to the subject charge.

The Magistrates’ Court hearing

Mr Marijancevic’s defence to the charge in the Magistrates’ Court was one of honest and reasonable mistaken belief that his licence was not suspended on 6 February 2005, the date upon which he was apprehended driving. The transcript of proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court was tendered in evidence in the appeal.

The Informant gave unchallenged evidence in the Magistrates’ Court to the effect that he and his corroborator, Senior Constable Riddle, intercepted Mr Marijancevic on 6 February 2005 and issued him with a penalty notice for speeding.

The prosecution sought to tender through the Informant a certificate stating that Mr Marijancevic’s licence had been suspended for three months from 15 December 2004 (“the certificate”). The certificate was purportedly issued by Mr Peter Donelly as a person authorised under s 84 of the Road Safety Act 1986.

Section 84(1) was in the following terms:

84.General evidentiary provisions
1.A certificate containing the prescribed particulars purporting to be issued by the [Roads Corporation] … or an authorised person certifying as to each matter which appears in or can be calculated from the records kept by the [Roads Corporation] … or a delegate of the [Roads Corporation] … is admissible in evidence in any proceedings and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the matters stated in the certificate.

The certificate was relevantly in the following terms :
State…

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 Ridsdale

Details

AGLC: Marijancevic v Ridsdale [2008] VSC 125
Case: [2008] VSC 125
Decision Date: 23 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marijancevic v Ridsdale involved an appeal by the respondent against a conviction for driving without due care and attention, issued under the Road Safety Act 1986. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The respondent, Ridsdale, was issued a penalty notice for driving without due care and attention. Ridsdale appealed the conviction, arguing that the certificate used as evidence was not properly executed and thus inadmissible. The appeal centred on the admissibility and validity of a certificate used as evidence in the conviction, specifically a certificate under section 84 of the Road Safety Act 1986.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. The first was whether the certificate needed to be signed by an authorised person or stamped with the signature of an authorised person. The second issue was whether the certificate constituted an original document or if it was a reproduction document under section 55A of the Evidence Act 1958. Lastly, the court had to consider whether the certificate was properly admitted and used as part of the evidence. These issues were pivotal in assessing the validity of the penalty notice issued to Ridsdale.

The court examined the requirements for a certificate under section 84 of the Road Safety Act 1986 and found that the certificate did not need to be signed by an authorised person but could be stamped with their signature. The court also held that the certificate was not an original document but a reproduction, as defined by section 55A of the Evidence Act 1958. Despite this, the court determined that the certificate was properly admitted and used as part of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction against Ridsdale.

The court did not issue further orders beyond dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction. The decision underscored the importance of the proper execution and admissibility of certificates used in evidence, particularly in traffic-related offences.

Orders