Mazza v Haime - [2000] WASCA 42

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: MAZZA -v- HAIME [2000] WASCA 42

CORAM: HEENAN J

HEARD: 1 FEBRUARY 2000

DELIVERED : 29 FEBRUARY 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1163 of 1999

BETWEEN: SHANE VICTOR MAZZA
Appellant
AND
MARTIN HAIME
Respondent

Catchwords:

Traffic offences - Reckless driving - Motor cyclist with pillion passenger - Speed - Approximately double speed limit - Travelling partly through built up area - Offence requiring advertence to likely consequences of dangerous manner of driving

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 s 60(1)

Result:

Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay respondent's costs.

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D L Armstrong
Respondent: Ms C Bathurst

Solicitors:

Appellant: Altorfer & Stow
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158
McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44
R (A Child) v Gwynne (1999) 28 MVR 441

Case(s) also cited:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95
Davey v Ridge, unreported; SCt of WA (Brinsden J); Library No 4824; 17 March 1983
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
Karytinos v SA Police (1996) 25 MVR 146
Lederer v Hitchins (1961) WAR 99
Morton v Bevis (1993) 19 MVR 181
Redman v Klun (1979) 20 SASR 343
Restifio v Bernstein (1996) 23 MVR 347
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Walker v Osborne (1995) 22 MVR 363

HEENAN J: On 20 August 1999 in the Court of Petty Sessions at Geraldton the appellant, a 24-year-old motorcycle technician, was convicted by Mrs A R Robins SM of the offence commonly known as reckless driving. Now he appeals against that conviction on grounds alleging errors in fact and law on the part of the learned Magistrate. On the hearing of the appeal his counsel challenged findings that he was riding his motorcycle at a speed in excess of 112 km/h, that his driving was dangerous, in particular, to his pillion passenger and that he drove with reckless disregard for the safety of the public and others.
Shortly before 6 pm on Wednesday 17 February 1999 the appellant was riding his Honda 600 cc motorcycle north along Chapman Road, Bluff Point. He was on his way home after work and was giving a lift to a 16‑year‑old fellow employee who was on the pillion seat. The evidence shows that when it was a short distance north of Charles Street the motorcycle crossed the broken white line to the eastern half of the roadway and overtook two other north-bound vehicles before returning to the western side. Having travelled through intersections at Green Street and Hallett Place and having gone past an entrance road to a tennis club, the motorcycle went through the roundabout and intersection at Crowtherton Street, about 500 m from Charles Street, and took a left…

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 Mazza v Haime

Details

AGLC: Mazza v Haime [2000] WASCA 42
Case: [2000] WASCA 42
Decision Date: 29 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mazza v Haime, heard by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, involved a dispute regarding a traffic offence charged against the appellant, Mazza. The alleged offence was reckless driving, committed while the appellant was riding a motorcycle with a pillion passenger. The incident occurred at a speed approximately double the speed limit, partly through a built-up area. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions constituted reckless driving under the relevant provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986. The court was required to determine if the appellant had exhibited a dangerous manner of driving and whether he had adverted to the likely consequences of such driving.

The court carefully examined the evidence presented, including the speed at which the motorcycle was travelling and the circumstances of the journey through the built-up area. The court found that the appellant's speed and the nature of the area through which he was travelling created a significant risk of harm. The court also considered whether the appellant had adverted to the likely consequences of his dangerous driving. The evidence indicated that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to avoid the risk of harm, which was a critical factor in determining whether the offence of reckless driving had been committed. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the appellant had indeed engaged in a dangerous manner of driving and had failed to advert to the likely consequences, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirements for the offence of reckless driving.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for reckless driving was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to speed limits and the duty of motorcyclists to ensure the safety of themselves and others, particularly when carrying a pillion passenger. The court's reasoning highlights the need for motorists to be aware of the potential consequences of reckless driving and to take appropriate precautions to avoid endangering others on the road.

Orders