Rodger v Wojcik

Rodger appealed against a conviction and sentence imposed by a judicial registrar of the Magistrates' Court. The appellant was charged with exceeding the speed limit. The charge was heard and determined by the judicial registrar in the absence of the appellant, who had failed to appear at court despite a preliminary brief having been served. The appellant argued that the appeal from the order of the judicial registrar was not competent and that the evidence in the preliminary brief was not sufficient to prove the charge. The court was required to determine whether the appeal was competent and whether the evidence in the preliminary brief was sufficient to prove the charge.

The court found that the appeal was competent as it was an appeal from a final order of the Magistrates’ Court. The evidence in the preliminary brief was sufficient to prove the charge, even though it was insufficient to prove the prescribed use of the speed detection device, and therefore the particular speed alleged. The court held that the appeal should be allowed and that the appellant should be re-sentenced by the Supreme Court on the evidence in the preliminary brief, rather than by the Magistrates’ Court on remittal on fresh evidence. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the appellant was driving at a speed greater than the speed limit, even if the precise speed could not be determined.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed and that the conviction and sentence be quashed. The appellant was to be re-sentenced by the Supreme Court on the evidence in the preliminary brief. The case highlights the importance of appearing in court and the consequences of failing to do so, as well as the sufficiency of evidence in a preliminary brief.