Legal Research
Cases
Minear v Rudrum

Minear v Rudrum

Case [2001] WASCA 10 31 January 2001

Mens Rea & Intention

Road Traffic Offences

Cancellation of Motor Driver's Licence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

MINEAR -v- RUDRUM [2001] WASCA 10

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 10
Case No:	SJA:1206/2000	Heard:	19 JANUARY 2001
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	31/01/01
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DYLAN MICHEAL MINEAR LEE DOUGLAS RUDRUM
Catchwords:	Criminal law Road traffic offence Cancellation of motor driver's licence by operation of law Driver believing he could drive until licence collected Whether mistake of fact or law Application of s 24 of the Criminal Code
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 22, s 24 Road Traffic Act 1974, s 45, s 49, s 51, s 62, s 102
Case References:	Brooks v Roberts, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970072; 17 February 1997 Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424 Duffield v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995 Egerton v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960700; 28 November 1996 Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383 McCaskie v Bagby, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 1534; 18 April 1975 Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373 Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233 Nobes v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960486; 26 August 1996 Nutall v R, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920090; 26 February 1992 Pilkington v R [1955] Tas SR 144

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : MINEAR -v- RUDRUM [2001] WASCA 10 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 19 JANUARY 2001 DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1206 of 2000 BETWEEN : DYLAN MICHEAL MINEAR

Appellant

AND

LEE DOUGLAS RUDRUM

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Road traffic offence - Cancellation of motor driver's licence by operation of law - Driver believing he could drive until licence collected - Whether mistake of fact or law - Application of s 24 of the Criminal Code

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s, 22, s 24

Road Traffic Act 1974, s 45, s 49, s 51, s 62, s 102

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J R Criddle

Respondent : Ms M J Garnett

Solicitors:

Appellant : J R Criddle

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Brooks v Roberts, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970072; 17 February 1997
Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424
Duffield v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995
Egerton v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960700; 28 November 1996
Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383
McCaskie v Bagby, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 1534; 18 April 1975
Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373
Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233

Case(s) also cited:

Nobes v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960486; 26 August 1996
Nutall v R, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920090; 26 February 1992
Pilkington v R [1955] Tas SR 144

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J : The appellant, who was…

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 Minear v Rudrum

Details

AGLC: Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10
Case: [2001] WASCA 10
Decision Date: 31 JANUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Minear v Rudrum, the defendant Rudrum was charged with a road traffic offence after being caught driving while his licence was cancelled. Rudrum's argument was that he was unaware of the cancellation and believed he could continue driving until he collected his licence. The case reached the court on appeal, with Rudrum seeking to overturn his conviction on the basis of his belief that he was entitled to drive. The issue before the court was whether Rudrum's belief about the legal status of his driving licence constituted a valid defence under section 24 of the Criminal Code. This section allows for a defence where the accused was under a mistaken belief of fact, which negated the necessary mens rea for the offence.

The court examined whether Rudrum's belief was genuinely held and reasonable, and whether it could be considered a mistake of fact rather than law. The court noted that section 24 applies to mistakes of fact but not to mistakes of law, and that the onus was on Rudrum to prove his belief was genuine and reasonable. The court found that Rudrum's belief was not genuinely held, as he had been informed of the cancellation and had not made any effort to ascertain the status of his licence. Consequently, his defence failed under section 24. The appeal was dismissed, affirming Rudrum's conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10

Most Recent Citation

Morris v Lapsley [2005] WASC 151

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Douglas v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2025] WASCA 11 Para 7

…uld have taken that course in this instance'. (footnotes omitted) [20] Maxwell 511; See also Egerton v Taylor (1996) 90 A Crim R 186; Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10; (2001) 33 MVR 119; Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305; (2001) 124 A Crim R 496.…
Police v Topic
[2023] ACTMC 47

…Supreme Court of Western Australia, Wallace J, Library No 1534, 18 April 1975), Wroblewski v Starling at 235, Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10. See also, relevantly, Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383; (2000) 32 MVR 354. [64] As Roberts-Smith J said in Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424 at [39]: The salient point whic…
Rowe v Miller
[2018] WASC 405 Para 1

…rge of which the appellant was convicted.[23] [22] Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233; Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373, 385; Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10; (2001) 33 MVR 119 [11]. [23] Code, s 22.…
Poole v Edwards
[2016] ACTSC 159 Para 1

…ie v Bagby (Unreported, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Wallace J, Library No 1534, 18 April 1975), Wroblewski v Starling at 235, Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10. See also, relevantly, Illich v Young (2000) 32 MVR 354.…
Tuang v Gadenne
[2015] WASC 383

…Aubertin v The State of Western Australia (2006) 33 WAR 87 Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129 Wroblewski v Starling [19…
Morris v Lapsley
[2005] WASC 151

…95 CLR 665 McWaters v Talbot, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 930359, 3 June 1993 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Ollerton (1989) 40 A Crim R 133 R v English (1993) 10 WAR 355 Sagiv v The Queen (1986) 22 A Crim R 73 Sl…
Beattie v Prime
[2002] WASCA 111

…Beauglehole v Smith [1972] WAR 61 Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 Norden v Miller (1985) 3 MVR 163 Whiteman v Keady (1993) 18 MVR 229; (1995) 21 MVR 447 Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383 Duckrell v Lee [1972] WAR 48 Gibbons v Oliver [1969] WAR 112 Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305 Price v Davies (2001) 120 A Crim R 1…
Palmer v Ostrowski
[2002] WASCA 39

…41; 20 December 1996 McCaskie v Bagby, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallace J); Library No 1534; 18 April 1975 McKenzie v G J Coles & Co Ltd [1986] WAR 224 Minear v Rudrum (2001) 33 MVR 119 Moore v Moore [2001] WASCA 126 O'Brien v Ostrowski [1999] WASCA 184 Ostrowski v Zaza [1999] WASCA 156 Parker v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 49…
Glover v Reyne
[2001] WASCA 305 Para 8

…The principles were further elaborated by Miller J in a summary of relevant authorities in Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 at [9] ‑ [11]: "9Reliance is placed upon the decision of Walsh J in Egerton v Taylor , unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960700; 28 November 1996 where his Honour said: 'It has long been held…
Smith v Hope
[2001] WASCA 287

…80595; 14 October 1998 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 McLachlan v August (1996) 16 WAR 75 Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 Moursellas v Pharmaceutical Council (1992) 10 WAR 240 Pettit v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Denton v Bodycoat
[2000] WASCA 424

…Brooks v Roberts, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970072; 17 February 1997 Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424 Duffield v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995 Egerton v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960700; 28 November 1996 Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383 McCaskie v…
Illich v Young
[2000] WASCA 383

…orted; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995 Egerton v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960700; 28 November 1996 Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383 McCaskie v Bagby, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 1534; 18 April 1975 Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373 Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233 N…
Meissner v the Queen
[1995] HCA 41

…Reference might also be made to Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132 where (at 157) Dawson J said:…
Kitchen v The Attorney-General of Victoria
[1989] HCATrans 55

…at 187 -188 and per Sholl J at 190, Ansell v The Queen [1966] Tas SR 8 per Gibson J at 9; R v Vella (1984) 14 A Crim R 90; Attorney General v Kitchen (1989) 51 SASR 54; R v Kardogeros (1990) 49 A Crim R 352 and Eyre v The Queen , unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930149; 18 March 1993."…
[1923] 2 KB 400
[1923] 2 KB 400

…on recorded on a plea of guilty will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. In a passage which has frequently been cited, Avory J in R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400 at 403 said:…
Mayer v Marchant
1 NZLR 660

…Code applied, ignorance of the law being no excuse. See Hanger CJ in Sancoff v Holford, ex parte Holford (1973) QR 25 at p27 and Mayer v Marchant (1973) 5 SASR 567." 13 At first glance one would read these observations of Wallace J as meaning that a defence under s 24 of the Code was unavailable, any mistake on the…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
45 2 mentions
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA)
1 mention
Justices Act 1902 (NSW)
1 mention