R v Chan

[2011] NSWDC 227

District Court

New South Wales

Case Title:	R v CHAN
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWDC 227
Hearing Date(s):	18 October 2011
Decision Date:	18 October 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed - conviction confirmed
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Breach road rule 287 - Not provide particulars
Legislation Cited:	Road Rule 287
Cases Cited:
Texts Cited:
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	The Crown Arthur Rodney CHAN
Representation
- Counsel:
- Solicitors:	Director of Public Prosecutions Benjamin & Leonardo Criminal Defence Lawyers
File number(s):	2011/101086
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before:
- Date of Decision:
- Citation:
- Court File Number(s)
Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Arthur Rodney Chan has been charged by police with breaching a road rule, that being road rule 287 which specifies what a driver must do after having been involved in a crash. He was convicted of this offence in the court below and appeals to this Court against his conviction.

2. The Crown tendered the transcripts and exhibits from the court below but it was agreed between the parties that I need not read any of that material because of the relative lack of any factual dispute and because the argument in this Court is based on the law and not evidence. Having been told of what the evidence was and having received submissions as to the law I am content to deal with the matter in the way in which the parties want me to.

3. Briefly this is what occurred. The appellant is a taxi driver. He stopped his taxi to let a passenger out. The passenger opened the right hand rear door. A bus collided with the door. The bus driver and Mr Chan, the appellant, spoke to each other. The bus driver requested that Mr Chan provide his particulars. Mr Chan did not provide his particulars to the bus driver.

4. It is Mr Chan's case that for reasons Mr Goh explained he did not want to tell the driver of his particulars until the police arrived. The bus driver had passengers on his bus and so eventually he gave up and left without Mr Chan telling the bus driver such things as Mr Chan's name and address. In those circumstances, as I said, Mr Chan was charged with a breach of r 287. Subsection (2) requires, amongst other matters, that Mr Chan, within the time that is defined as being as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-four hours, if practicable, at the scene of the crash tell the bus driver things he did not tell him.

5. Mr Goh submits however that subs (2) is subject to subs (3) which provides:

   "The driver must also give the driver's required particulars within the required time to a police officer if...the driver does not for any reason give the driver's required particulars to each person mentioned in sub rule (2)."

6. Thus Mr Goh says that subs (3) provides in effect an option for a driver involved in a crash that he or she can either comply with subs (2) or subs (3). Mr Goh illustrated his submission by postulating the following scenario. A driver drives his or her vehicle in a way which collides with another car. The driver of that other car is aggressive, upset at his car being damaged. In those circumstances the driver who caused the collision may well be prepared to give particulars to the police but may be fearful of disclosing the driver's name and address to an aggressive, aggrieved person. Mr Goh says that Parliament could not have intended that such a person would be guilty of an offence.

7. On the other hand the Crown's submission is that it is my job to interpret the legislation and if the legislation provides that the driver in the postulated situation is guilty of an offence then it is my duty to apply the legislation even if unforseen consequences flow.

8. I am not at all sure that even in the postulated situation the driver would be guilty of an offence. Some close examination of the defence of necessity might be appropriate if anyone were charged in that situation. But I do accept the Crown's submission that it is my duty to interpret the legislation using the words that appear in the section as the first port of call.

9. The difficulty with Mr Goh's submission is that his argument would either ignore the word "also" or give it an interpretation which is not consistent with my understanding of the everyday meaning of that word. The word "also" means "in addition to". It does not mean "instead of". It is possible to interpret subs (3)(b). the words "for any reason in particular" in a way which is consistent with giving the word its natural, everyday meaning. Indeed the words "for any reason" are probably superfluous. All they mean is that should a driver not comply with subs (2) then they have an obligation under subs (3) to provide particulars to police. For example if the other driver did not request particulars or drove away then the driver could not comply with subs (2). There would be a reason that there was no compliance. Nevertheless the observation under subs (3) would arise.

10. There are various aids to the interpretation of a statute but one of the important ones is that I must give effect to each word in a section. I must give effect to the word "also" in subs (3). When I do that I must therefore reject the argument put by Mr Goh. It is possible that this has unintended consequences but that is not a matter for me but for Parliament.

11. The appeal against conviction is dismissed and the conviction is confirmed.

    **********