MOORE -v- MOORE [2001] WASCA 126

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 126
Case No:	SJA:1020/2001	Heard:	9 APRIL 2001
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	9/04/01
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	JARROD RUEBEN JOHN MOORE STEPHEN MOORE
Catchwords:	Dangerous driving causing bodily harm What constitutes driving in a manner dangerous to the public Honest belief that road clear Whether a defence
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59
Case References:	A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97 Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572 Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390 McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44 Becker v Roberts, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 970686; 12 December 1997 Hancock v Cox (1993) 19 MVR 137 Kitson v The Queen (1987) 5 MVR 228 McLuckie v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950420; 11 August 1995 O'Brien v Ostrowski [1999] WASCA 184

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : MOORE -v- MOORE [2001] WASCA 126 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 9 APRIL 2001 DELIVERED : 9 APRIL 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1020 of 2001 BETWEEN : JARROD RUEBEN JOHN MOORE

Appellant

AND

STEPHEN MOORE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - What constitutes driving in a manner dangerous to the public - Honest belief that road clear - Whether a defence

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A C Thorpe

Respondent : Mr S J Wright

Solicitors:

Appellant : A C Thorpe

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97
Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44

Case(s) also cited:

Becker v Roberts, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 970686; 12 December 1997
Hancock v Cox (1993) 19 MVR 137
Kitson v The Queen (1987) 5 MVR 228
McLuckie v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950420; 11 August 1995
O'Brien v Ostrowski [1999] WASCA 184

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J

Introduction

1 This is an appeal from the Court of Petty Sessions against the conviction of the appellant on two charges of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

Factual circumstances giving rise to the charges

2 The factual circumstances giving rise to these charges are not in issue.

3 The charges relate to a traffic accident at the intersection of Abercrombie Road and Anketell Road, Hope Valley, at about noon on Saturday 5 February 2000.

4 Ms Kelso was driving her friend Ms Bell in a Ford Festiva east on Anketell Road, Hope Valley at about 80 to 90 kilometres per hour. At the same time, the appellant was driving a Toyota Landcruiser utility south in Abercrombie Road, Hope Valley. Abercrombie Road terminates at…

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 Moore v Moore

Details

AGLC: Moore v Moore [2001] WASCA 126
Case: [2001] WASCA 126
Decision Date: 9 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moore v Moore was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Moore, sued the appellant, also Moore, for damages resulting from an incident where the appellant allegedly drove dangerously, causing injury to the respondent. The dispute hinged on whether the appellant's actions constituted dangerous driving under the relevant statutory provisions, and whether his belief that the road was clear could serve as a defence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the statutory provision concerning dangerous driving. The court had to determine whether the appellant's actions amounted to driving in a manner dangerous to the public, and if his belief that the road was clear provided a valid defence. This required an analysis of the appellant's conduct, his state of mind, and the circumstances leading to the incident.

The court held that the appellant's belief that the road was clear did not absolve him of liability for dangerous driving. The court reasoned that an honest belief alone does not negate the objective nature of the statutory offence. The appellant's actions, which involved driving without proper regard for the safety of others, were deemed to be dangerous, regardless of his subjective belief. The court further found that the appellant's conduct fell short of the requisite standard of care expected of a reasonable driver. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision in favour of the respondent was upheld.

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.