Munro v Wovodich - [2013] WASC 215

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: MUNRO -v- WOVODICH [2013] WASC 215

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 24 MAY 2013

DELIVERED : 31 MAY 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1130 of 2012

BETWEEN: JAKE VERNON MUNRO
Appellant
AND
JASMINE LOUISE WOVODICH
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B C GLUESTEIN
File No  :JB 160 of 2011, JO 9198 of 2012, JO 9213 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Appeal against conviction - Whether magistrate drew inference against the appellant when alternative inference consistent with innocence was reasonably open - Whether magistrate overlooked unchallenged evidence supporting a conclusion of innocence - Whether magistrate erred in making findings of fact - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59A

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P G Laskaris
Respondent: Ms K A T Pedersen

Solicitors:

Appellant: W.G. McNally Jones Staff Lawyers
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; (1992) 173 CLR 572
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56

BEECH J: The appellant was convicted of three counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, arising from one collision in which three people were injured. The appellant appeals against his convictions. There are three grounds. In broad summary, the first ground alleges that the magistrate erred in drawing an inference of guilt in circumstances where there was an alternative inference, consistent with innocence, that was reasonably open on the evidence. Secondly, the appellant claims that the magistrate overlooked uncontradicted evidence supporting a conclusion of innocence. Thirdly, the appellant claims that the magistrate made errors in his findings of fact.
For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal.
I will begin with an outline of uncontroversial background facts, the charges and prosecution opening, and the magistrate's reasons, before dealing with the grounds of appeal in turn.

The factual context

On 25 April 2011, the complainant, Mr Daniel Miguel was driving his silver Nissan Pathfinder north on Indian Ocean Drive. His partner, Ms Celine Murray, and their young son were in the car.
Indian Ocean Drive runs north‑south. Jurien Road East commences on Indian Ocean Drive and runs at a right angle to it, to the east.
Indian Ocean Drive is, in this area, a single lane in each direction. For about 140 m on either side of where Jurien Road East meets Indian Ocean Drive, Indian Ocean Drive has been widened. In that area the northbound lane is 6.63 metres wide. Immediately before and after that area it is 3.77 metres wide. The widening is evidently to permit a car to pass safely to the left of a vehicle which has stopped or slowed in order to turn right from Indian Ocean Drive into Jurien Road East.
The appellant was driving a red Holden utility vehicle north on…

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 Munro v Wovodich

Details

AGLC: Munro v Wovodich [2013] WASC 215
Case: [2013] WASC 215
Decision Date: 31 MAY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Munro v Wovodich, the appellant, Munro, was convicted by a magistrate of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and he sought to appeal the conviction. The dispute arose from an incident in which Munro was alleged to have caused harm to another person while driving in a manner that was dangerous. The appeal was heard by a higher court in Australia.

The court was required to consider whether the magistrate had erred in drawing an inference against Munro when an alternative inference consistent with innocence was reasonably open. The court also needed to determine whether the magistrate overlooked unchallenged evidence that supported a conclusion of innocence. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the magistrate had erred in making findings of fact.

The court found that the magistrate had erred in drawing an inference against Munro when an alternative inference consistent with innocence was reasonably open. The court also found that the magistrate overlooked unchallenged evidence supporting a conclusion of innocence. Furthermore, the court concluded that the magistrate had erred in making findings of fact. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a different magistrate for rehearing. The court did not make any further orders in the case.

Orders