Norman v Curran - [2018] WASC 155

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   NORMAN -v- CURRAN [2018] WASC 155
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   23 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   25 MAY 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1007 of 2017
BETWEEN:   DARREN LANCE NORMAN
Appellant
AND
BRADLEY JOHN CURRAN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1007 of 2017
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT
Coram:   MAGISTRATE G R SMITH
File Number             :   PE 14906 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against acquittal - Driving whilst licence suspended - Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49(1)(a) - Whether magistrate erred in holding that an officer of the department could not serve demerit point disqualification notice.

Statutory construction - Proper construction of Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA), s 41, s 49, s 59, Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 8 - Carltona principle - Error in finding that service of notice could not be effected by an officer of the department - Remitted to Magistrate Court

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9, s 14
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 4, s 8, s 9
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA), s 41, s 49, s 59
Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Regulations 2014 (WA), r 69
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49

Result:

Leave granted
Appeal allowed
Remitted to the Magistrates Court

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms N Eagling
Respondent	:	In person

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Respondent	:	In person

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

Carltona Ltd v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 ALL ER 560
Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 22
LS v Director General of Family and Community Services (1989) 18 NSWLR 481
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering Crown Lands Act (Nelson Bay Claim) (2014) 88 NSWLR 125
New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Navazi [2013] NSWCA 431
O'Reilly v Commissioners of State Bank of Victoria (1982) 153 CLR 1
Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd v Victorian Rail Track [2012] VSC 452
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor (2001) 207 CLR 391
Re Plutonic Operations Ltd; Sipa Resources Ltd and The Minister for Mines; Ex parte Roberts [1999] WASCA 133
Salia Property v Commissioner of Highways (2012) 112 SASR 384
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451

MCGRATH J:

The respondent, Mr Curran, was charged with one offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst not being a person authorised to do so, for the reason that his drivers license was suspended due to the loss of demerit points pursuant to s 49(1)(a) and s 49(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act1974 (WA). Mr Curran pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial in the Magistrates Court. The magistrate acquitted Mr Curran,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Norman v Curran and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] WASC 155
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norman v Curran involved the appellant appealing against an acquittal of a charge of driving while his licence was suspended. The matter was heard and dismissed in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, and the appellant now seeks review in a higher court. The central issue before the court was whether the magistrate correctly determined that an officer of the department could not serve a demerit point disqualification notice. This issue was critical as it pertained to the interpretation and application of specific sections of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA), as well as the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA).

The court considered the statutory provisions and the Carltona principle, which allows for the delegation of statutory duties to appropriate officers. The magistrate's decision hinged on a narrow interpretation of who could legally serve the notice, leading to the conclusion that only a police officer could do so. The appellant argued that the statutory language permitted an officer of the department to serve the notice, a matter that required detailed statutory construction. The court needed to determine if the magistrate's interpretation was correct or if there was an error in law that warranted a different outcome.

Upon review, the court found that the magistrate had erred in limiting the service of the notice to police officers only. The proper construction of the statutes allowed for the delegation of such duties to officers of the department. Therefore, the court held that the magistrate's decision was incorrect and remitted the matter back to the Magistrates Court for further proceedings. The court's reasoning was grounded in a broader interpretation of the statutory language and the applicability of the Carltona principle.

Orders