Prazmo v Urquhart - [2018] WASCA 10

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: PRAZMO -v- URQUHART [2018] WASCA 10

CORAM: BUSS P
MAZZA JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD: 18 JANUARY 2018

DELIVERED : 18 JANUARY 2018

PUBLISHED : 18 JANUARY 2018

FILE NO/S: CACR 170 of 2017

BETWEEN: KRZYSZTOF PRAZMO
Appellant
AND
GORDON URQUHART
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MARTINO J
Citation  :PRAZMO -v- URQUHART [2017] WASC 215
File No  :SJA 1103 of 2016

Catchwords:

Appeal against conviction - Parking offences - Whether inadequate pre-trial disclosure - Whether magistrate made error of fact - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

City of Joondalup Parking Local Law 2013 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

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

Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 18 January 2018 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The appellant was convicted of three counts of parking his Volvo sedan in contravention of cl 3.1(4) of the City of Joondalup Parking Local Law 2013 (Local Law). Clause 3.1(4) provides:
A driver shall not park a vehicle or permit a vehicle to remain parked in a parking facility controlled by a sign stating 'Authorised Vehicles Only', without -
(a) a valid parking permit displayed inside the vehicle that is clearly visible to and able to be read by an Authorised Person from outside and from the front of the vehicle at all times while that vehicle remains parked in that parking facility; or
(b) prior written permission of the local government, the CEO, or an Authorised Person to park within the area.
Clause 1.5 of the Local Law defines a 'parking facility' to include land, buildings, shelters, parking stalls and other facilities open to the public generally for the parking of vehicles and includes signs, notices and facilities used in connection with the parking of vehicles.
Clause 9.1(1) of the Local Law relevantly provides that any person who does anything, which under the Local Law that person is prohibited from doing, commits an offence. Section 3.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) enables local laws made under that Act to provide that contravention of a provision of the local law is an offence.
The evidence of the offence was primarily that of Ms Murphy, a parking officer at the City of Joondalup and an authorised person for the purposes of the Local Law. She gave evidence that, on 6, 10 and 24 February 2015, she observed the appellant's Volvo sedan parked in Lakeside Drive in the City of Joondalup, in an area where a sign indicated that parking was for authorised vehicles only. Her evidence was that, on each date, she checked the vehicle for displayed permits and that the vehicle was not broken down, before issuing an infringement notice. Ms Murphy's…

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 Prazmo v Urquhart

Details

AGLC: Prazmo v Urquhart [2018] WASCA 10
Case: [2018] WASCA 10
Decision Date: 18 JANUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was brought before the court by Prazmo, who contested the outcome of a traffic infringement notice issued by Urquhart. The dispute centred on whether the magistrate erred in convicting Prazmo of parking offences, with the argument that there was inadequate disclosure of evidence prior to the trial, and that the magistrate had made an error of fact based on the facts presented. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the magistrate had erred in law by convicting Prazmo without adequate disclosure of evidence. The argument was that the disclosure was insufficient, as it did not include certain crucial elements that could have influenced the outcome of the trial. Secondly, the court had to determine if there was an error of fact made by the magistrate in assessing the evidence presented.

The court reviewed the magistrate's decision and found that the disclosure provided was adequate and that there was no error of law in convicting Prazmo. The court held that the evidence provided was sufficient for the magistrate to make a finding of guilt. Furthermore, the court determined that the magistrate had not made an error of fact in their assessment of the evidence, as the findings were supported by the facts presented in the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. The magistrate's conviction of Prazmo was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders