RICHARDS -v- DAMIANOPOLOUS [2002] WASCA 159

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 159
Case No:	SJA:1187/2001	Heard:	31 MAY 2002
Coram:	McLURE J	Delivered:	14/06/02
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEPHEN ANDREW RICHARDS E DAMIANOPOLOUS
Catchwords:	Road Traffic Act 1974 Reckless driving First offence Whether period of disqualification excessive Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 5(1a)(b), s 60(1), s 60(3) and s 76
Case References:	Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Forbes v Durant [1999] WASCA 85 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Piggott v Chitty, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920116; 9 March 1992 Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Carter v Denham [1984] WAR 123 Damianopulos v Director General of Transport (1997) 26 MVR 182 Davis v Commissioner of Police (WA) (1990) 12 MVR 297 Farrington v Thomson & Bridgland [1959] VR 286 Kearns v Lane, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallace J); Library No 5424; 27 June 1984 Reynolds v Wilkinson (1948) 51 WALR 17 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Varnavides v Kilmurray, unreported; SCt of WA (Burt CJ); Library No 1843; 4 October 1976 Walker v Osborne (1995) 22 MVR 363 Woods v Webb, unreported; SCt of WA (Kennedy J); Library No 8147; 19 March 1996

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : RICHARDS -v- DAMIANOPOLOUS [2002] WASCA 159 CORAM : McLURE J HEARD : 31 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 14 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1187 of 2001 MATTER : Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : STEPHEN ANDREW RICHARDS

Appellant

AND

E DAMIANOPOLOUS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Road Traffic Act 1974 - Reckless driving - First offence - Whether period of disqualification excessive - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 5(1a)(b), s 60(1), s 60(3) and s 76

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R J L McCormack

Respondent : Mr T C Russell

Solicitors:

Appellant : D G Price & Co

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Forbes v Durant [1999] WASCA 85
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Piggott v Chitty, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920116; 9 March 1992

Case(s) also cited:

Attree v Randell (1993) 19 MVR 95
Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Carter v Denham [1984] WAR 123
Damianopulos v Director General of Transport (1997) 26 MVR 182
Davis v Commissioner of Police (WA) (1990) 12 MVR 297
Farrington v Thomson & Bridgland [1959] VR 286
Kearns v Lane, unreported; SCt…

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 Richards v Damianopolous

Details

AGLC: Richards v Damianopolous [2002] WASCA 159
Case: [2002] WASCA 159
Decision Date: 14 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richards v Damianopolous involved an appeal against a conviction and sentence for reckless driving under the Road Traffic Act 1974. The appellant, Mr Richards, was convicted and sentenced to a 12-month disqualification from driving. He argued that the disqualification period was excessive given that it was his first offence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to decide whether the disqualification period imposed on the appellant was excessive in the circumstances. It needed to consider the relevant legislative provisions and case law relating to the imposition of disqualification periods for first-time offenders. The court also needed to weigh the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The court found that the disqualification period was not excessive. It considered the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter future reckless driving. The court held that the disqualification period was within the range of sentences that a court could impose for a first offence of reckless driving. It also noted that the appellant had no previous convictions and had shown remorse for his actions. The court concluded that the disqualification period was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the court. The conviction and sentence for reckless driving, including the 12-month disqualification period, were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.