Ralph v Police (No 2) - [2006] SASC 374

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
RALPH v POLICE (No 2)
[2006] SASC 374
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
12 December 2006
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Application for leave to appeal - leave refused.
Glenauchen Pty Ltd v Circuit Finance Pty Ltd [2001] SASC 61, considered.

RALPH v POLICE (No 2)
[2006] SASC 374
Civil
Application for leave to appeal
GRAY J:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court.
On 13 September 1996, I delivered reasons dismissing the applicant, Andrew Henry Ralph’s, appeal against conviction in the Magistrates Court.[1] As I outlined in those reasons, following a series of non-attendances, Mr Ralph was convicted in his absence by a magistrate of four offences – drive unregistered motor vehicle; drive uninsured motor vehicle; drive without licence; drive in excess of speed limit. Mr Ralph was subsequently notified of the convictions and appeared before the court at which time he was fined in respect of each of the offences. In addition, in respect of the drive uninsured motor vehicle charge, he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five months.
[1] Ralph v Police [2006] SASC 296.
In my earlier reasons, I set out in detail the history of the proceedings before this Court.[2] I there discussed Mr Ralph’s correspondence with this Court and a medical certificate of unfitness for work issued by Dr Malcolm Mackay provided by Mr Ralph. I described Mr Ralph’s consistent and repeated failure to attend Court to present his appeal and his failure to provide any good reason or evidence for his failure to attend. As a result, I ultimately dismissed Mr Ralph’s appeal in his absence and without having heard his submissions in support of his appeal.
[2] Ralph v Police [2006] SASC 296 at [3]-[5].
On 9 October 2006, Mr Ralph filed an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court against my decision dismissing his appeal. In support of his application, Mr Ralph filed a statutory declaration dated 9 November 2006, in which he purported to explain his repeated failure to appear before the Magistrates Court in relation to the charges the subject of this application. In addition, he outlined his defence to the charges, which, in effect, amounts to a claim that he was not the driver and it was not his vehicle.
In relation to his appeal to this Court, Mr Ralph submitted that he had not been given an opportunity to put his case and asserted that he was unable to appear on the dates set for the hearing of the appeal “due to travel difficulties”. He further asserted that he was not the driver of the vehicle involved in the subject offending and that it was not his car.
In addition, Mr Ralph tendered a report of Dr Malcolm Mackay dated 30 October 2006, which stated the following:
I confirm that my medical certificate, which I have copied below, was in…

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 Ralph v Police (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Ralph v Police (No 2) [2006] SASC 374
Case: [2006] SASC 374
Decision Date: 12 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ralph was a plaintiff in proceedings against the police, and the dispute related to a decision made in the course of the proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his decision to dismiss the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal against a previous decision that had been made in the case.

The court considered whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion correctly in dismissing the application for leave to appeal. The court noted that the trial judge had considered the relevant factors and had provided reasons for his decision. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in his decision and that there was no basis for granting leave to appeal. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the trial judge's decision had been wrong or that there were any grounds for an appeal.

The court refused the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal. The court did not provide any further orders.

Orders