Police v Rogers - [2010] QMC 16

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Rogers [2010] QMC 16

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

ROBIN JOHN ROGERS

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG165558/09(0), MAG172202/09(8)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Charge – Summary hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Tully

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Tully

HEARING DATE:

24 March 2010

MAGISTRATE:

Brassington J

ORDER:

Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – defendant convicted.

Failure to provide a specimen – defendant convicted.

Unlicenced driving – defendant acquitted.

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – failure to provide a specimen – unlicenced driving – whether drifting into another lane repeatedly is dangerous driving - circumstantial evidence proving identity – whether notice of suspension containing a mistake is valid – whether mistaken belief about licence suspension is a mistake of fact or mistake of law

Criminal Code, s 328A

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 78, s 79B, s 79D, s 80(11)

R v Pettman [2007] QCA 233

COUNSEL:

T Lee (solicitor) for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution appeared on own behalf

Lee & Co for defendant

Mr. Rogers is charged with the following offences:
That on the 19^th day of August 2009 at Mission Beach in the State of Queensland Robin John Rogers dangerously operated a vehicle namely a white motor vehicle in a place namely Tully Mission Beach Road and at the time of committing the offence the said Robin John Rogers was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance
That on the 19^th day of August 2009 at Tully in the Magistrates Courts District of Innisfail in the State of Queensland he was guilty of an offence against s. 79(1) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 in that he upon a requisition duly made by Constable Harwood a police office under sub section 8C of section 80 of the said Act failed to provide as prescribed a specimen of his breath for analysis
That on the 28^th day of August 2009 at Mission Beach in the Magistrates Courts District of Innisfail in the State of Queensland he drove a motor vehicle namely a motor car on a road namely Tully Mission Beach Road Mission Beach the said Defendant not being at that time the holder of a drivers licence authorising him to drive a vehicle on the road and further at the time of committing the offence the Qld drivers licence was suspended under s. 79B of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995

To these charges he pleaded not guilty. The matter was heard by me 24 March 2010. These are the reasons for my judgment in the trial.

All three charges have a common origin: the observations of Jeffrey Broad. On 19 August 2009 Mr. Broad was driving on the Mission-Beach Tully Road on his way to his Tully Office. He came up behind a white car also driving to Tully. While following this white car he saw it repeatedly slowly cross the white dividing lines…

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 Police v Rogers

Details

AGLC: Police v Rogers [2010] QMC 16
Case: [2010] QMC 16
Decision Date: 31 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defendant, Rogers, charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure to provide a specimen, and unlicenced driving. The defendant was observed by a police officer driving in a manner that involved frequent drifting into another lane, which was deemed dangerous. Additionally, the defendant failed to provide a specimen when requested, and it was alleged that the defendant was driving without a valid licence. The court was tasked with determining whether the observed conduct constituted dangerous driving, whether the prosecution had successfully proven the defendant's identity and whether the defendant's mistaken belief about the validity of their licence suspension constituted a valid defence.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included the interpretation of the term "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle" and the circumstances under which a driver's conduct may be considered dangerous. The court also considered the admissibility of circumstantial evidence to establish the defendant's identity and the validity of a licence suspension notice containing an error. Furthermore, the court had to distinguish between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law in the context of the defendant's belief regarding the suspension of their licence.

The court found that the defendant's repeated drifting into another lane constituted dangerous driving, as it posed a significant risk to other road users. The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court acquitted the defendant on the charge of unlicenced driving, as the notice of suspension contained a factual error that rendered it invalid. The court held that the defendant's belief about the invalidity of their licence suspension was a mistake of fact, which could potentially serve as a defence under certain circumstances.

The court convicted the defendant of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failure to provide a specimen. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of unlicenced driving. The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced accordingly for the offences of which they were convicted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – defendant convicted.

Failure to provide a specimen – defendant convicted.

Unlicenced driving – defendant acquitted.

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.

CITATION:	Police v Rogers [2010] QMC 16
PARTIES:	POLICE (prosecution) v ROBIN JOHN ROGERS (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG165558/09(0), MAG172202/09(8)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Charge – Summary hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Tully
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Tully
HEARING DATE:	24 March 2010
MAGISTRATE:	Brassington J
ORDER:	Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – defendant convicted. Failure to provide a specimen – defendant convicted. Unlicenced driving – defendant acquitted.
CATCHWORDS:	TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – failure to provide a specimen – unlicenced driving – whether drifting into another lane repeatedly is dangerous driving - circumstantial evidence proving identity – whether notice of suspension containing a mistake is valid – whether mistaken belief about licence suspension is a mistake of fact or mistake of law Criminal Code, s 328A Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 78, s 79B, s 79D, s 80(11) R v Pettman [2007] QCA 233
COUNSEL:	T Lee (solicitor) for defendant
SOLICITORS:	Prosecution appeared on own behalf Lee & Co for defendant