Legal Research
Cases
Mounsey v Lafayette

Mounsey v Lafayette

Case [2002] VSC 342 6 September 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4987 of 2002

BRENDA RUTH MOUNSEY	Appellant
v
LEV LAFAYETTE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Nettle J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mounsey v Lafayette
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 342

---

Transport – offences – failing to produce a valid ticket on request – defences – whether intention to buy ticket at conclusion of journey constitutes a defence – Transport Act 1983, ss. 221(1A), (2) and (4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R.F. Redlich QC with Mr A.G. Burns	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Respondent	Ms J.J. Batrouney SC with Ms G.L. Schoff	Baker & McKenzie

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal from a final order of the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne, made on 5 March 2002, whereby the respondent, Lev Lafayette, was acquitted of a charge of failing to produce a valid ticket on request, contrary to s. 221(4) of the Transport Act 1983.

So far as is relevant for the purposes of this appeal, s. 221 of the Transport Act provides that:

“(1) In this section-
(a)‘carriage’ means any passenger vehicle operated by or on behalf of a passenger transport company or bus company;
(b)‘ticket’, in relation to a journey or land or premises the property of a passenger transport company, means a ticket, pass, symbol or other thing issued to a person entitling that person to make that journey or be on that land or those premises; and
(c)‘authorized person’ means a person who is authorised in writing by the Secretary for the purposes of this section.

(1A) A passenger transport company or bus company may-
(a)with the approval of the Secretary or the Director, determine conditions to which a ticket of a specified class issued by or on behalf of it is to be subject; and
(b)publish those conditions in the Government Gazette.

…
(2)A person may make a journey in a carriage, or be on land or premises for entry to which a ticket is required, without a ticket if-
(a)prior to commencing the journey or entering that land or those premises he takes all reasonable steps to purchase a ticket; and
(b)while making the journey or being on that land or those premises he has no reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket; and
(c)on completion of the journey or on leaving that land or those premises he takes all reasonable steps to purchase a ticket.

(3)Subject to sub-section (2), a person who makes a journey in a carriage, or is on land or premises for entry to which a ticket is required, without having in his possession a ticket that is valid for that journey or entry is guilty of an offence.
Penalty:5 penalty units

(4)A person who makes a journey in a carriage, or is on land or premises for entry to which a ticket is required, and, not being entitled to…

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 Mounsey v Lafayette

Details

AGLC: Mounsey v Lafayette [2002] VSC 342
Case: [2002] VSC 342
Decision Date: 6 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mounsey v Lafayette involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mounsey, and the defendant, Lafayette, regarding an alleged offence under the Transport Act 1983. Mounsey was prosecuted for failing to produce a valid ticket on request, a charge under section 221(1A) of the Act. Lafayette, in defence, argued that Mounsey had intended to purchase a ticket at the end of his journey, a contention which was disallowed by the lower court. The matter was brought before the court for determination of the validity of this defence under the relevant sections of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's intention to purchase a ticket at the conclusion of a journey constituted a valid defence to a charge of failing to produce a valid ticket upon request. This required the court to interpret sections 221(1A), (2) and (4) of the Transport Act 1983, with a focus on the legislative intent and the applicability of the proposed defence. The court had to determine if the mere intention to buy a ticket later absolved the defendant of the obligation to possess a valid ticket at the time of request, or if such intention was irrelevant to the offence.

The court found that the intention to purchase a ticket at the end of the journey did not constitute a defence under the Transport Act 1983. It held that the plain language of the Act required passengers to have a valid ticket at the time of request, irrespective of any subsequent intention to purchase one. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions did not provide for an exception based on future intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's argument and upheld the conviction, finding that the intention to buy a ticket did not negate the requirement to produce a valid ticket upon request.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Lafayette against the conviction of Mounsey was dismissed. The conviction for failing to produce a valid ticket on request stood, and the defendant was subject to the penalties prescribed by the Transport Act 1983. The court's decision clarified the scope of permissible defences under the Act and reinforced the necessity for passengers to comply with the ticket-holding requirements at all times during their journey.

Orders