PALLETT -v- PAUL [2007] WASC 290
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 290 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1056/2007 | 18 OCTOBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 2/12/07 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Fine varied | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NADA BETI PALLETT KAROLYN LOUISE PAUL |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appellant convicted of driving a vehicle without a valid vehicle licence Whether magistrate erred in refusing to grant adjournment of hearing Whether effect of refusal to adjourn denied appellant an opportunity of acquittal Held on appeal that defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief had no real prospect of defence s 24 of Criminal Code (WA) excluded by specific provisions of Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) Appeal dismissed in the absence of any miscarriage of justice |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2), s 40(1)(e) Criminal Code (WA), s 24 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 15(1), s 15 (3) |
Case References: | Aubertin v Western Australia (2006) 33 WAR 87 Bennett v Councillor [2001] WASCA 342 Birks v Western Australia (2007) 33 WAR 291 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 De La Espriella-Velasco v The Queen (2006) 31 WAR 291 Easterday (2003) 143 A Crim R 154 G J Coles & Co Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183 Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129 Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442 Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Hillstead v The Queen [2005] WASCA 116 Lappan v Hughes [2003] WASCA 173 Lawless v Turner [2007] WASCA 127 Lawless v Turner [2007] WASCA 2 Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133 McPherson v Cairn [1977] WAR 28 Mickelberg v The Queen (2004) 29 WAR 13 Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373 Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536 R v Jones [1971] VR 72 R v McGill [1967] VR 683 Wroblewski v Starling [1987] WAR 233 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
KAROLYN LOUISE PAUL
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE P G MALONE
File No : PE 54901 of 2006
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appellant convicted of driving a vehicle without a valid vehicle licence - Whether magistrate erred in refusing to grant adjournment of hearing - Whether effect of refusal to adjourn denied appellant an opportunity of acquittal - Held on appeal that defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief had no real prospect of defence - s 24 of Criminal Code (WA) excluded by specific provisions of Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Appeal dismissed in the absence of any miscarriage of justice
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2), s 40(1)(e)
Criminal Code (WA), s…
Continue reading Pallett v Paul
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290
- Case
- [2007] WASC 290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Pallett, was convicted by a magistrate of driving a vehicle without a valid vehicle licence and sought to appeal the decision. The court had to consider whether the magistrate erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the hearing and whether the refusal to adjourn denied the appellant an opportunity of acquittal. The court also had to consider the applicability of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) and whether it was excluded by the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The court held that the defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief had no real prospect of succeeding and that section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) was excluded by the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The appeal was dismissed in the absence of any miscarriage of justice. The court varied the fine imposed by the magistrate.
The appellant argued that the magistrate erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the hearing. The appellant submitted that the adjournment was necessary to obtain legal advice and to prepare a defence. However, the court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an adjournment. The court noted that the appellant had been aware of the charge for some time and had not sought an adjournment earlier. The court held that the refusal to adjourn did not deny the appellant an opportunity of acquittal.
The court also considered the applicability of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) which provides a defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief. The court held that the defence had no real prospect of succeeding as the appellant had not provided any evidence to support the defence. The court noted that the appellant had not taken any steps to obtain a licence and had not made any inquiries with the relevant authorities. The court held that the defence was not available to the appellant.
The court also considered whether section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) was excluded by the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The court held that the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) excluded the operation of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA). The court noted that the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) imposed strict liability for driving a vehicle without a valid licence and did not provide for a defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief. The court held that the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) excluded the operation of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA).
The appellant argued that the magistrate erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the hearing. The appellant submitted that the adjournment was necessary to obtain legal advice and to prepare a defence. However, the court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an adjournment. The court noted that the appellant had been aware of the charge for some time and had not sought an adjournment earlier. The court held that the refusal to adjourn did not deny the appellant an opportunity of acquittal.
The court also considered the applicability of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) which provides a defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief. The court held that the defence had no real prospect of succeeding as the appellant had not provided any evidence to support the defence. The court noted that the appellant had not taken any steps to obtain a licence and had not made any inquiries with the relevant authorities. The court held that the defence was not available to the appellant.
The court also considered whether section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) was excluded by the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The court held that the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) excluded the operation of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA). The court noted that the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) imposed strict liability for driving a vehicle without a valid licence and did not provide for a defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief. The court held that the specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) excluded the operation of section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA).
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Fine varied
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.