PALMER -v- "A" (A CHILD) [1999] WASCA 290
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 290 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1057/1999 | 24 NOVEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | McKECHNIE J | 24/11/99 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction for careless driving substituted | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID FRANCIS PALMER "A" (A CHILD) |
Catchwords: | Driving offences Reckless, dangerous or careless No new principles |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60 |
Case References: | Attree v Randall (1993) 19 MVR 95 Geneff v Townshend [1970] WAR 20 McBride v R (1965-1966) 115 CLR 44 Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Becker v Roberts (1997) 27 MVR 193 Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Company Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842 Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd (1970) 124 CLR 192 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158 Hemsley v McLean (1995) 22 MVR 33 Kaighin v R (1990) 1 WAR 390 Morton v Bevis (1993) 19 MVR 181 Price v Fletcher [1972] Tas SR 35 R (A Child) v Gwynne (1999) 28 MVR 441 Tate v Arnold (1993) 19 MVR 649 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : PALMER -v- "A" (A CHILD) [1999] WASCA 290 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 24 NOVEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 24 NOVEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1057 of 1999 BETWEEN : DAVID FRANCIS PALMER
- Appellant
AND
"A" (A CHILD)
Respondent
Catchwords:
Driving offences - Reckless, dangerous or careless - No new principles
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60
Result:
Appeal allowed
Conviction for careless driving substituted
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms K E McDonald
Respondent : Mr R S Bell
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Crown Solicitor
Respondent : Youth Legal Service
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Attree v Randall (1993) 19 MVR 95
Geneff v Townshend [1970] WAR 20
McBride v R (1965-1966) 115 CLR 44
Case(s) also cited:
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Becker v Roberts (1997) 27 MVR 193
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Company Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842
Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd (1970) 124 CLR 192
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158
Hemsley v McLean (1995) 22 MVR 33
Kaighin v R (1990) 1 WAR 390
Morton v Bevis (1993) 19 MVR 181
Price v Fletcher [1972] Tas SR 35
R (A Child) v Gwynne (1999) 28 MVR 441
Tate v Arnold (1993) 19 MVR 649
(Page 3)
- McKECHNIE J:
An unusual way to carry furniture
1 On 1 November 1998 the respondent, then aged 15, went with a friend to pick up a lounge chair that the friend had seen and which had been thrown in a bulk rubbish pile. They wished to carry the lounge about 125 metres. They had a car. The friend had been drinking so…
Continue reading Palmer v "A" (A Child)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Palmer v "A" (A Child) [1999] WASCA 290
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was an appeal by the appellant against a conviction for careless driving. The respondent, a child, was the subject of the conviction. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury, which resulted in a conviction that was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and whether the conviction was open to the criticism that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the elements of the offence of careless driving and that this resulted in a conviction that could not be sustained. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions were erroneous and, if so, whether this error was significant enough to warrant a substitution of the conviction.
The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were not erroneous and that the conviction was safe and satisfactory. The court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the elements of the offence of careless driving and that there was no basis for substituting the conviction. The court also noted that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction and that there was no error in the trial judge's handling of the case. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the conviction should stand.
The final order of the court was that the appeal was allowed and that the conviction for careless driving was substituted with a conviction for dangerous driving. This meant that the appellant's original conviction was overturned and replaced with a more serious conviction. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for dangerous driving and that this was the appropriate conviction in the circumstances. The court also noted that the appellant had an opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of the original conviction and that there was no basis for substituting the conviction. The court concluded that the substitution of the conviction was appropriate and that the appeal should be allowed.
The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and whether the conviction was open to the criticism that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the elements of the offence of careless driving and that this resulted in a conviction that could not be sustained. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions were erroneous and, if so, whether this error was significant enough to warrant a substitution of the conviction.
The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were not erroneous and that the conviction was safe and satisfactory. The court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the elements of the offence of careless driving and that there was no basis for substituting the conviction. The court also noted that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction and that there was no error in the trial judge's handling of the case. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the conviction should stand.
The final order of the court was that the appeal was allowed and that the conviction for careless driving was substituted with a conviction for dangerous driving. This meant that the appellant's original conviction was overturned and replaced with a more serious conviction. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for dangerous driving and that this was the appropriate conviction in the circumstances. The court also noted that the appellant had an opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of the original conviction and that there was no basis for substituting the conviction. The court concluded that the substitution of the conviction was appropriate and that the appeal should be allowed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Conviction for careless driving substituted
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.