Roder v Police - [2000] SASC 432

RODER v POLICE
[2000] SASC 432

Magistrates Appeal (ex tempore)

1................ DUGGAN J....... The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of driving without due care, contrary to s.45 of the Road Traffic Act (1961). The complaint alleged that the offence took place at Torrens Park on 9 July 2000. The appellant was convicted and fined $50. He was ordered to pay costs totalling $126. He now appeals against the order whereby a conviction was recorded.

It is argued that the learned magistrate should have acceded to the submission that the offence was “trifling” within the meaning of s 15 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act, 1988 (the Act) or, alternatively, that he should have imposed a penalty without conviction pursuant to s 16 of the Act.
The circumstances in which the offence took place are not in dispute. The appellant was 19 years of age at the time of the offence. He was driving a vehicle along Ayr Avenue, Torrens Park at about 1.30 pm on Sunday, 9 July 2000 when he lost control of the vehicle. There were three passengers in the vehicle at the time. The vehicle hit the kerb on the northern side of the road, then collided with a tree on the southern side of the road.
It would appear that the accident occurred when the appellant heard his mobile telephone ringing. He took one hand off the steering wheel and reached for the telephone. It would also appear that he took his eyes off the road when reaching for the telephone. The telephone stopped ringing, but at this point the vehicle hit the kerb and spun around so that the rear of the vehicle hit a tree on the other side of the road. The vehicle was extensively damaged.
When imposing penalty, the learned magistrate said:
“Mr Roder, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of driving without due care and I accept without hesitation that this type of careless driving is out of character for you. A ringing phone distracted you and the consequences were an accident. Fortunately, nobody was hurt. I have no doubt whatsoever that you have learnt from this and you will not use a phone again while you are driving. Your personal circumstances and those of the offending do not, I believe, permit me to proceed without recording a conviction, but I will underline your previous good character by imposing a minimum penalty. You will be convicted and fined $50 with costs totalling $126.00”
The prosecution did not allege any previous convictions. No other motor vehicle was involved in the accident. No person was injured. There was positive evidence of good character provided by written testimonials which were admitted into evidence.
According to the affidavit of the solicitor who represented the appellant before the learned magistrate, his Honour indicated while submissions were being made, that the offence was one of strict liability and that, as a result, he could not refrain from recording a conviction. This assertion has not…

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 Roder v Police

Details

AGLC: Roder v Police [2000] SASC 432
Case: [2000] SASC 432
Decision Date: 5 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roder v Police, the appellant appealed against a conviction for driving without due care under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act (1961), which occurred on 9 July 2000 at Torrens Park. The appellant, who was 19 at the time of the incident, lost control of his vehicle while reaching for his mobile phone, resulting in a collision with a tree. The appellant pleaded guilty and was fined $50, in addition to being ordered to pay $126 in costs. The appellant contested the recording of a conviction, arguing that the offence was trifling or that a penalty without conviction should have been imposed under sections 15 and 16 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, respectively. The court considered the arguments and examined whether the offence was trifling and whether there were any extenuating circumstances justifying a penalty without conviction.

The court assessed whether the offence was trifling by considering the nature of the offence and the appellant's conduct. It was noted that the appellant had taken his attention away from the road to answer his ringing phone, which led to the accident. The court found that the appellant's conduct was not trifling, as such acts were typical of offences of driving without due care. The court concluded that section 15 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 did not apply to the circumstances of this case. The court also considered whether a penalty without conviction should have been imposed under section 16 of the Act. The court found that the appellant was not unlikely to commit such an offence again, and there were no other extenuating circumstances that would justify a penalty without conviction. The court concluded that the circumstances of this case did not warrant an exceptional category.

In summary, the court found that the appellant's conduct did not constitute a trifling offence and that the imposition of a conviction was appropriate. The low fine imposed adequately reflected the appellant's good character and the other mitigating factors presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty were upheld.

Orders