MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Police v Topic |
Citation: | [2023] ACTMC 47 |
Hearing Date: | 10 August 2023 and 29 November 2023 |
Decision Date: | 29 November 2023 |
Before: | Magistrate Temby |
Decision: | See [141]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – driving whilst right to drive was suspended – strict liability offence - excuse of honest and reasonable mistake – notice of suspension received by Defendant – Defendant failed to read suspension notice – mistake of fact, not mistake of law – mistake was not reasonable |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) s 69 Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 83.4 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Cth) ss 71, 76, 92 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 36, 58 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s19 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 5A, 31A Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 22, 24, 26-27, 39 44, 72(1)(a) Road Transport (General) Amendment Bill 2020 (ACT) Road Transport (General) Regulation 2000 (ACT) s 9B |
Cases Cited: | Cook v Commissioner of Police [2012] QCA 118 Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383 Mayer v Merchant (1973) 5 SASR 567 McCaskie v Bagby (Unreported, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Wallace J, Library No 1534, 18 April 1975) Mei Ying Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (No 2) [2008] FCA 1485; (2008) 251 ALR 135 Nikro v O’Sullivan [2013] ACTSC 129 Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; 218 CLR 493 Ottobrino v Espinoza (1995) 14 WAR 373 Pangallo v Actew Corporation Limited [2002] ACTSC 15 Poole v Edwards [2016] ACTSC 159 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Paul Topic ( Defendant) Attorney-General (ACT) (Intervenor) |
Representation: | Counsel B Kaplan (Intervenor) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Self-represented ( Defendant) |
File Number: | CC 3285 of 2023 |
MAGISTRATE TEMBY:
Introduction
1․The defendant appeared before the court in relation to proceedings CC2023/3285, in which he is charged with one offence of driving while his right to drive was suspended, contrary to subsection 31A(1) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (Driver Licensing Act). This offence is a strict liability offence (s 31A(2)).
2․It is alleged that, on 30 March 2023, between 8.45pm and 9.00pm, the Defendant drove on Garryowen Drive in Acton, in the ACT, while his right to drive remained suspended as a result of the Defendant’s failure to pay an infringement notice penalty. The matter was listed for hearing before me on 10 August 2023.
3․The Defendant accepts that he was driving on Garryowen Drive in Acton between 8.45pm and 9.00pm on 30 March 2023. He also accepts, subject to an argument as to the validity of the relevant legislative scheme, that his right to drive in the ACT was suspended at that time. That is, he accepts that the elements of the offence provided for in subsection…
Continue reading Police v Topic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Topic [2023] ACTMC 47
- Case
- [2023] ACTMC 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the offence in question was one of strict liability, meaning that the prosecution did not need to prove any mens rea on the part of the defendant. However, it was acknowledged that an honest and reasonable mistake of fact could serve as a defence. The defendant argued that he had not read the suspension notice and therefore did not know of the suspension. The court examined whether this constituted a reasonable mistake of fact. It was determined that the mistake was not reasonable because the defendant had received the notice and had the opportunity to read it. The court emphasised that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have read the notice, thus failing to establish a valid excuse.
As a result, the court found the defendant guilty of the offence. The matter was then remitted to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria for sentencing. The final orders were detailed in the judgment at paragraph [141].
Orders
Orders of the court
See [141].
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.