Perron v Seiler - [2000] WASCA 145

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: PERRON -v- SEILER [2000] WASCA 145

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 23 MAY 2000

DELIVERED : 26 MAY 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1009 of 2000

BETWEEN: ROY FRANCIS PERRON
Appellant
AND
RONALD THOMAS SEILER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Driving offence - Speeding - Conflicting evidence as to speed - Each speedometer certified to be correct - Whether Magistrate should have had a reasonable doubt - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Code, reg 1001(1)(b)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J R Quigley
Respondent: Ms A C Johnson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Hammond Worthington
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Harling v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
Hijazi v Orr (1998) 26 MVR 266
Porter v Kolodzeij [1962] VR 75
Redman v Klun (1979) 20 SASR 343

Case(s) also cited:

Davis v Armstrong (1993) 17 MVR 190
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Jenkins v WMC Resources Ltd [1999] WASCA 171
Madgen v Ashe (1992) 17 MVR 219
Radalj v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970490; 26 September 1997

MILLER J: The appellant was charged by complaint in the Court of Petty Sessions, Perth that on 23 July 1999 at Manning he drove a motor vehicle, registered number LXS 400 on Kwinana Freeway at 110kmh, being a speed in excess of the limit of 100kmh within that speed zone, contrary to reg 1001(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and a trial was heard before Mr K Moore SM on 23 December 1999. At its conclusion the learned Magistrate found the charge proven and convicted the appellant who was fined the sum of $100. From that conviction the appellant was, on 13 March 2000, given leave to appeal to this Court on the following grounds:
"(i)The learned Magistrate erred in law in finding as matter of 'belief' that the apprehending officer's speedometer must have been correct because he was bound to accept that things that are regularly done, have been regularly done.
(ii)The learned Magistrate misdirected himself and erred in law and cast a burden upon the Applicant in finding that if there had been anything wrong with the speedometer he was in no doubt that it would have been brought to his attention. Implicit in that misdirection was brought to his attention by the defence whereas it was for the prosecution at all times to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the speedometer on the motor cycle was correct.
(iii)The conviction was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence is that:-
(a)the speedometer on the motor cycle was last checked as long ago as 19 May 1999 and not checked again prior to apprehension on 23 July 1999 and the absence of any check after 23 July 1999; and
(b)the cruise control on the Applicant's motor vehicle was checked as being correct on 2 August…

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 Perron v Seiler

Details

AGLC: Perron v Seiler [2000] WASCA 145
Case: [2000] WASCA 145
Decision Date: 26 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Perron v Seiler, the defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle at an excessive speed. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant argued that the evidence regarding the speed at which the vehicle was travelling was conflicting and unreliable, as each speedometer in question had been certified to be correct. The central issue for the court was whether the Magistrate had erred in not having a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, given the conflicting evidence.

The court examined the principles of criminal law relevant to driving offences, particularly those related to the reliability of speed evidence. It was noted that while each speedometer had been certified, the reliability of the evidence was still subject to scrutiny, especially in light of conflicting accounts. The court held that where evidence is conflicting, the trier of fact must consider the probabilities and whether the evidence, when considered as a whole, satisfies the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the Magistrate had not erred in finding the defendant guilty, as the evidence, when considered as a whole, supported the conclusion that the defendant was driving at an excessive speed.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of a holistic approach to conflicting evidence, particularly in cases where the accuracy of the evidence is not in question but its interpretation is. The court held that the Magistrate was entitled to find the defendant guilty based on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders