Sacchero v Polizzi

[2010] WASC 90

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   SACCHERO -v- POLIZZI [2010] WASC 90

CORAM:   McKECHNIE J

HEARD:   15 APRIL 2010

DELIVERED          :   15 APRIL 2010

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1137 of 2009

BETWEEN:   ANDREW CARLO SACCHERO

Appellant

AND

MARK ANTHONY POLIZZI
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :Justices of the Peace

File No  :FR 2442 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Plea of guilty by unrepresented offender - Justices failure to explain consequences of the conviction - Possible defence mentioned - Not dealt with

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 129(3)

Result:

Extension of time granted
Appeal allowed
Matter returned to Magistrates Court

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr K P Bates

Respondent:     Ms E M L Mills

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Gunning Barristers & Solicitors

Respondent:     State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Nil

1. McKECHNIE J:  On 4 March 2009 Mr Sacchero was caught speeding.  He appeared before Justices of the Peace and pleaded guilty to riding a motorcycle at a speed of 155 kilometres an hour.  This offence in fact constitutes reckless driving.  He was unrepresented and the Justices did not, as required, satisfy themselves that he understood the plea and its consequences. 

2. The consequences were important because, as a later correction of sentence before a Magistrate showed, he was facing a life disqualification.  Mr Sacchero also indicated a possible defence to the charge about which no account was taken. 

3. The respondent concedes that the Court did not seek further information about this possible defence, nor explain the mandatory penalty to Mr Sacchero.  It concedes appellable error.

4. In my opinion the prosecution concession is responsibly and appropriately made and I agree with it.  The appellant is severely out of time but in the circumstances, to fail to grant an extension would be to continue an injustice.

5. Leave is granted, the conviction is set aside and the matter returned to the Magistrates Court for trial.