Matruglio v Garrett - [2012] ACTSC 110

ANTHONY MARK MATRUGLIO v WILLIAM MICHAEL GARRETT
[2012] ACTSC 110 (19 June 2012)

TRAFFIC LAW – licensing of drivers – cancellation of licences – effect after expiry of licence – no longer “person whose licence is cancelled” – appellant charged with wrong offence.
TRAFFIC LAW – licensing of drivers – cancellation of licences – disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence – differences between them – relevant offences.
INTERPRETATION – general rules of construction of instruments – statutes – effect of repeal – whether contrary intention shown – penalty of disqualification whether preserved.

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 116ZP
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 154D, 216, div 3.10.2
Motor Traffic Act 1936 (ACT), ss 176, 191P, 193(14)
Motor Traffic (Amendment) Act (No 2) (1997), ss 21, 191K
Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936 (ACT), ss 193, 193A

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 32, 33, 41

Road Transport (General) Act 1999, ss 65, 66, 291, 292
Road Transport Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (ACT)
Interpretation Act 1967 (ACT), s 41

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1998 (Cth), s 34(4)

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999

Australian Capital Territory, Australian Capital Territory Gazette, No S427, 19 December 1997
Australian Capital Territory, Australian Capital Territory Gazette, No S65, 23 December 1999

Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) (2010) 5 ACTLR 151
Director of Public Prosecutions v Greene (2003) 58 NSWLR 252

G F Heublin and Bro Incv Continental Liqueurs Pty Ltd (1962) 109 CLR 153

Hanel v Shoemark [2010] ACTSC 67
Hugg v Driessen [2012] ACTSC 46

Licciardello v McPherson [2012] ACTSC 31
Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1
Wade v Evans (2003) 180 FLR 290

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 1 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 19 June 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 1 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

ANTHONY MARK MATRUGLIO
Appellant

AND

WILLIAM MICHAEL GARRETT

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  19 June 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appellant have leave to amend the Notice of Appeal.

The appeal be upheld.

The conviction, sentence and orders made by the Magistrates Court on 28 February 2002 be set aside.

The conviction, sentence and orders made by the Magistrates Court on 21 October 2002 be set aside.

The conviction, sentence and orders made by the Magistrates Court on 9 December 2009 be set aside.

AND THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

Anthony Mark Matruglio is, at the date of this order, not a person whose Australian driver licence is suspended or cancelled, nor a person who is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

This appeal shows that care is needed when police, prosecutors and judicial officers are dealing with common offences, especially when they are contained in legislation which is often amended to change aspects that might need…

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 Matruglio v Garrett

Details

AGLC: Matruglio v Garrett [2012] ACTSC 110
Case: [2012] ACTSC 110
Decision Date: June 19, 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matruglio v Garrett involved a dispute concerning the cancellation of a driver's licence and the implications of such a cancellation beyond its expiry date. The appellant, Matruglio, challenged the charges against him for driving while disqualified from holding a licence, arguing that he was no longer a person whose licence had been cancelled since his licence had already expired. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity of the charges against Matruglio and the extent to which the cancellation of a licence affects a person after the licence has expired.

The court was required to decide whether a person remains subject to the consequences of a cancelled licence after the licence has expired and whether the offence of driving while disqualified from holding a licence applies in such circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to interpret the relevant statutes to determine whether the penalty of disqualification is preserved despite the repeal of certain provisions. The interpretation of the statutes and the understanding of the differences between the cancellation of a licence and disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence were central to resolving the legal issues at hand.

The court found that the appellant's licence had indeed been cancelled, and the effect of this cancellation extended beyond the expiry date of the licence. It was held that Matruglio remained subject to the consequences of the cancellation, including disqualification from holding a licence, even after the expiry of his licence. The court concluded that Matruglio was correctly charged with the offence of driving while disqualified from holding a licence, as the cancellation of the licence imposed a continuing obligation on him. Furthermore, the court interpreted the relevant statutes and found that the penalty of disqualification was preserved, despite the repeal of certain provisions, as there was no contrary intention shown.

The court granted the appellant leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to better reflect the issues raised in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellant have leave to amend the Notice of Appeal.

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.