R v J.P

[2020] NSWDC 596

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v J.P. [2020] NSWDC 596

Hearing dates:

7 September 2020

Date of orders:

7 September 2020

Decision date:

07 September 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Neilson DCJ

Decision:

Charge dismissed

Catchwords:

Bicycle rider breached a Road Rule but endangered no one - Offence was trivial - On appeal, granted an order under Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s10.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Road Rules 2014

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

J.P. – Appellant
Regina – Crown

Representation:

A. Tiedt – Appellant
R. Buttini - Crown

File Number(s):

2019/00136395

Publication restriction:

Nil.

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The appellant, Mr J.P., was charged with an offence against Road Rules 2014 s 56(1)(a) in that he, being the rider of a bicycle, failed to stop at a stop line at a red traffic control light on College Street, Darlinghurst, on 14 December 2018 at 1:22pm. The traffic control lights governed a pedestrian crossing across College Street, between Sydney Grammar School and Hyde Park. The offence is alleged to have occurred on 14 December 2018, shortly before Christmas, in a very busy time in Sydney ante COVID-19, and it is common ground that the traffic was very heavy in College Street and that there was a lot of pedestrian traffic as well on the footpaths, in particular by members of the public travelling between Hyde Park and eastern Sydney, no doubt returning from a short perambulation in the Park during the luncheon hour.

2. The appellant has been found guilty of this offence: driving in the gutter on the western side of College Street, when he reached the stop line at which he was required to stop by reason of traffic control lights, crossing the stop line and driving up the ramp of the pedestrian crossing onto the footpath and passing over to the other side of the pedestrian crossing and then crossing back onto College Street. There is no suggestion that the appellant endangered himself or any other person, or caused any risk to vehicular traffic, or, indeed, to pedestrian traffic. The reason the appellant returned to the carriageway was to avoid inconveniencing some pedestrians who were travelling south along the footpath of College Street from the intersection of College Street and Park Street: they were about 15 to 20 metres north of the pedestrian crossing in question, when the appellant returned to the carriageway of College Street. He did not wanting to inconvenience them, because that section of the footpath was narrow and he may have incommoded them by trying to drive past them, as he was heading north, if he had maintained a course on the footpath. In other words, this manoeuvre was designed not to endanger anybody, but to make life easier for the pedestrian traffic that there was on the relevant section of College Street.

3. In the circumstances, the appellant offered no harm to anyone at all. The offence was purely technical. The appellant had no prior conviction for any traffic offence whilst in charge of a bicycle, and people entering Sydney who cannot go everywhere on foot, are encouraged to do so these days by travelling on bicycles. In the circumstances, this appears to be a wholly appropriate case in which to give to the appellant the benefit of s 10, which is the ground on which he is appealing, being given leave to proceed with his appeal. For those reasons, I set aside the conviction recorded by McIntosh ALCM sitting in the Downing Centre Local Court on 15 October 2019. J.P., bearing in mind your prior good character and the trivial nature of the offence, I order that the charge be dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 08 October 2020