Rossiter v Adelaide City Council

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

ROSSITER v ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL

[2020] SASC 61

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Livesey

23 April 2020

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

TORTS - TRESPASS - TRESPASS TO GOODS

TRAFFIC LAW - TRAFFIC REGULATION - RESTRICTIONS ON STOPPING AND PARKING

Appeal against a parking conviction by a Magistrate.

The appellant received an expiation notice as the driver of a vehicle parked in excess of the 30-minute time limit indicated by a permissive parking sign. The appellant elected to be prosecuted and was issued an information and summons.

On the day of trial, but before the matter was called on, the appellant showed the prosecutor a notice which read, “Notice: private property, no trespassing”. The appellant said that the notice was displayed on the vehicle when the expiation notice was left on the windscreen.

In the Magistrates Court the appellant did not enter a plea. The Magistrate directed that a plea of "not guilty" be entered and proceeded as if the matter was ex parte. The prosecution proceeded to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt with the assistance of statutory aids to proof. The Magistrate did not rely on s 62BA of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) (“the Act”) which allows the Magistrates Court to regard any allegation contained in the information and summons as sufficient evidence of the matters alleged.

The appellant was found guilty of breaching r 205 of the Australian Road Rules and was fined without a conviction recorded.

In this Court, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction on 11 grounds, including on the bases that no plea was entered and that the inspectors trespassed when attaching the expiation notice to the windscreen.

Held, dismissing the appeal; each ground of appeal is without merit and misunderstands the statutory and regulatory authority of the respondent.

1. In the circumstances of this case, where the appellant was present but refusing to participate, there was no good reason not to take advantage of the statutory aid in s 62BA(1). Nonetheless the Magistrate’s adjudication on evidence in this case reinforced the absence of any miscarriage of justice to the appellant.

2. The affixation of the expiation notice to the vehicle was explicitly permitted by the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA) and could not comprise trespass.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Pt 8A; Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 62BA, s 129; Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA) s 6; Local Government Act 1999 (SA) s 208, s 260, s 261, s 292; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 5, s 17, s 35, s 80, s 174A, s 174B, s 174C s 174D, s 174E, s 175; Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014 (SA) reg 9, reg 63; Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 (SA) r 238, referred to.
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204; Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635; R v Hall [1971]…