Roberts v Police

In Roberts v Police, the appellant seeks an extension of time to bring an appeal against his conviction for running a red light and the imposition of three demerit points. The case arises from an incident on 10 November 2012, when the appellant's vehicle was detected by a photographic detection device entering an intersection while displaying a red light. The appellant was issued an expiation notice for the infringement, which he contested as trifling under the relevant legislation. When his application was unsuccessful, he elected to be prosecuted for the offence. The matter proceeded as an application under s 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA). The appellant pleaded guilty but argued that the offence was trifling due to the circumstances surrounding the incident, namely, that he entered the intersection to avoid a potential collision with a truck that was tailgating him. The magistrate did not accept this argument and convicted the appellant, imposing three demerit points.

The primary legal issues in the appeal were whether the magistrate erred in concluding that the offence was not trifling, whether the proceeding miscarried because the appellant's evidence was not given on oath, whether the magistrate erred by failing to hear submissions with respect to certain sections of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the mandatory requirement for evidence to be given on oath under s 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) and concluded that the proceeding was affected by a significant procedural irregularity. However, the court found that this irregularity did not affect the outcome of the conviction, as the appellant was aware of the concerns that the magistrate had expressed. The court also rejected the other grounds of appeal, finding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted an extension of time to bring the appeal. The court will hear the parties on the question of costs. The decision highlights the importance of procedural requirements in criminal proceedings and the court's discretion in determining whether an irregularity affects the outcome of the conviction.