Nickolson v Keeble

Case [2007] WASC 231

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   NICKOLSON -v- KEEBLE [2007] WASC 231

CORAM:   McKECHNIE J

HEARD:   11 SEPTEMBER 2007

DELIVERED          :   4 OCTOBER 2007

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1026 of 2007

BETWEEN:   VICTOR MARK NICKOLSON

Appellant

AND

MARK STEVEN KEEBLE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :MAGISTRATE L H JONES

File No  :AR 2044 of 2006

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Dangerous driving - U-turn on country road in front of traffic - Whether dangerous - Turns on own facts

Courts and judges - Duty of trial court to follow appellate court - Sentencing - Spent conviction order - Whether appropriate

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Cross-appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Ms K A Vernon

Respondent:     Mr C S Bydder

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Carol Adams

Respondent:     State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v Ray [2001] WASCA 340

A v Staples [2007] WASC 36

Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65

Becker v Roberts (1997) 27 MVR 193

Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; 26 WAR 510

Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383

Harper v Page [2004] WASCA 267

Higgins v Worthington [2003] WASCA 19

Kaighan v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390

Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267

Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339

Lucas v McPherson [2007] WASC 53

Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154; 130 A Crim R 393

Marchesani v Dalton [2006] WASC 204

Nichols v Harnet [2004] WASCA 311

Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172; 112 A Crim R 285

R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31; 22 WAR 291

Reynolds v Commissioner of Police [2001] WASCA 203

Rossi v Carter [2000] WASCA 321

Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105; 147 A Crim R 18

Tilbrook v Cole [2001] WASCA 94

Webb v Savage [2007] WASC 103

  1. McKECHNIE J: 

Introduction

  1. On 24 September 2005 the appellant, a serving police officer, had been on traffic duty all day patrolling the road between Williams and Armadale with Constable Daly when, at about 5.15, he observed a motorcycle, driven by Mr Turnbull, travelling at speed on the opposite side of the road towards Armadale.

  2. At the time, the appellant was heading towards Williams about 400 metres or slightly more beyond the North Bannister Roadhouse.  He was near a slip lane which led to the Wandering turnoff.  He entered the slip lane, whether in whole or part matters not, and commenced a U‑turn.  Mrs Ward was driving her four‑wheel drive vehicle in the same direction as the appellant when he suddenly pulled out in front of her, so close that the two vehicles collided heavily, finishing on the other side of the road.  The appellant was seriously injured.

  3. In due course, the appellant was charged with dangerous driving and stood trial in the Magistrates Court at Armadale.  On 21 March 2007 the magistrate convicted the appellant of dangerous driving, fined him $500 and made a spent conviction order.

  4. The appellant…

Continue reading Nickolson v Keeble

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nickolson v Keeble [2007] WASC 231
Case
[2007] WASC 231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Nickolson v Keeble, the defendant was convicted of dangerous driving and sentenced to a fine. The incident occurred when the defendant made a U-turn on a country road directly in front of oncoming traffic. The case was brought before the court to determine the legality of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence. The appeal questioned whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the defendant's actions were dangerous, while the cross-appeal challenged the decision to impose a fine rather than a more severe penalty.

The court was tasked with examining the principles surrounding dangerous driving and the circumstances that render a driving manoeuvre dangerous. It considered the inherent risks of making a U-turn in front of oncoming traffic and whether the defendant's actions were negligent under the circumstances. The court also had to weigh the importance of adhering to the decisions of higher courts and whether the trial judge was obligated to follow precedent. Additionally, the court deliberated on the appropriate sentencing, particularly the appropriateness of a spent conviction order.

The court determined that the trial judge correctly applied the principles of dangerous driving and was not bound to follow the decisions of higher courts where the facts differed. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the defendant's actions were indeed dangerous given the specific circumstances. Regarding sentencing, the court found the fine to be appropriate, taking into account the mitigating factors and the precedent for similar offences. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were affirmed.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Cross-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.