MCFARLANE v Police - [2014] SASC 55

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
MCFARLANE v POLICE
[2014] SASC 55
Judgment of The Honourable Justice David
17 April 2014
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES
TRAFFIC LAW - REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES - UNREGISTERED VEHICLES
INSURANCE - MOTOR VEHICLES - COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE AND LIKE SCHEMES - OFFENCES - DRIVING, USE OR CAUSING OR PERMITTING USE OF UNINSURED VEHICLE - DRIVING OR USE OF UNINSURED VEHICLE
The appellant was found guilty by a Magistrate of two counts each of driving a motor vehicle while unregistered and uninsured (totalling four counts) – appellant was driving motor vehicle on Port Wakefield Road, Globe Derby, on 22 May 2012 and on Government Road, Andamooka, on 24 June 2012 - appellant’s vehicle was unregistered and uninsured at all relevant times – appellant contended at trial and on appeal that he had a defence of reasonable and honest mistake of fact – whether defence available to appellant – whether, notwithstanding recent changes to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ practice of issuing registration labels, the offences charged remain offences of strict/absolute liability.
Held: Appeal dismissed – the appellant has failed to identify any error on behalf of the Magistrate - the recent change in the practice of issuing registration labels does not have any impact on the law established by the Full Court in Franklin v Stacey - by virtue of the strict liability of the offences for which he was charged, in conjunction with the undisputed facts, the appellant is guilty of those offences.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) ss 9, 102; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 79B; Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 (SA) reg 14; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 87, referred to.
Franklin v Stacey (1981) 27 SASR 490, applied.
Singh v Police [2013] SASC 155, considered.

MCFARLANE v POLICE
[2014] SASC 55
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

DAVID J: The defendant was charged under section 79B of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (the “RTA”) with being the owner of a motor vehicle that was involved in the commission of four registration offences, which occurred on two separate days.
In particular, it was alleged, from evidence obtained through the operation of a photographic detection device, that on 22 May 2012 at Globe Derby the defendant’s vehicle was involved in the commission of two offences contrary to section 102(1) and section 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) (the “MVA”) respectively.
Further, it was alleged that on 24 June 2012 at Andamooka the defendant’s vehicle (being the same vehicle the subject of the earlier charges) was again involved in the commission of two offences contrary to section 102(1) and section 9(1) of the MVA respectively. In relation to those offences, evidence was given by the police officer who issued the relevant expiation notice to the defendant and a number of documents and certificates…

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 MCFARLANE v Police

Details

AGLC: MCFARLANE v Police [2014] SASC 55
Case: [2014] SASC 55
Decision Date: 17 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McFarlane appealed against his conviction by a Magistrate for four counts of driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. The Magistrate found that the appellant was driving his vehicle on two separate occasions, 22 May 2012 and 24 June 2012, without valid registration and insurance. The appellant argued that he had a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, contending that recent changes to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' practice of issuing registration labels should affect the strict liability nature of the offences. The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the appellant's defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact was available to him and whether the offences remained ones of strict liability despite the changes in the Registrar's practice.

The court found that the grounds of appeal concerning the prosecution's failure to provide certain statistics and the allegedly unfair cross-examination of the appellant were without merit and did not establish any error on the part of the Magistrate. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any valid defence to the offences charged. The court held that the recent changes in the practice of issuing registration labels did not alter the strict liability nature of the offences as established by the Full Court in Franklin v Stacey. Given the strict liability of the offences and the undisputed facts of the case, the appellant was found guilty of all charges.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction by the Magistrate was upheld. The court confirmed that the appellant had failed to identify any error by the Magistrate, and the recent changes in the Registrar's practice did not impact the strict liability nature of the offences. Consequently, the appellant remained guilty of the four counts of driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: Appeal dismissed – the appellant has failed to identify any error on behalf of the Magistrate - the recent change in the practice of issuing registration labels does not have any impact on the law established by the Full Court in Franklin v Stacey - by virtue of the strict liability of the offences for which he was charged, in conjunction with the undisputed facts, the appellant is guilty of those offences.

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

In the circumstances and having regard to matters set out above, the grounds of appeal relating to the prosecution’s failure to provide certain statistics and the purportedly unfair cross-examination of the appellant are without merit and do not disclose any error on behalf of the Magistrate. Further, they do not provide the appellant with any valid defence to the offences charged.Conclusion The defendant has failed to establish any error on behalf of the Magistrate. The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.