SAVILL -v- CRUICKSHANK [2002] WASCA 182

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 182
Case No:	SJA:1090/2001	Heard:	12 JUNE 2002
Coram:	WHITE AUJ	Delivered:	27/06/02
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CRAIG ROYSTON SAVILL JAY ROBERT CRUICKSHANK
Catchwords:	Appeal against conviction on charge of dangerous driving Whether Magistrate's published reasons adequate Whether finding of guilt unreasonable Whether onus of proof was reversed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Hedge v Thurston [2001] WASCA 43 Jiminez v R (1992) 173 CLR 572 Kaighan v R (1990) 11 MVR 119 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions [1942] 1 AC 11 McBride v R (1996) 115 CLR 44 Morton v Bevis (1993) 19 MVR 181 R v Mullen (1938) 59 CLR 124 Rasoolifard v Nicol [2001] WASC 142 Smith v R [1976] WAR 92

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : SAVILL -v- CRUICKSHANK [2002] WASCA 182 CORAM : WHITE AUJ HEARD : 12 JUNE 2002 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1090 of 2001 BETWEEN : CRAIG ROYSTON SAVILL

Appellant

AND

JAY ROBERT CRUICKSHANK

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against conviction on charge of dangerous driving - Whether Magistrate's published reasons adequate - Whether finding of guilt unreasonable - Whether onus of proof was reversed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr B Hanbury

Respondent : Ms L E Christian

Solicitors:

Appellant : Beau Hanbury

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347

Case(s) also cited:

Hedge v Thurston [2001] WASCA 43
Jiminez v R (1992) 173 CLR 572
Kaighan v R (1990) 11 MVR 119
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions [1942] 1 AC 11
McBride v R (1996) 115 CLR 44
Morton v Bevis (1993) 19 MVR 181
R v Mullen (1938) 59 CLR 124
Rasoolifard v Nicol [2001] WASC 142
Smith v R [1976] WAR 92

(Page 3)

1 WHITE AUJ: This is an appeal against the decision of his Worship, Mr R H Burton SM on 15 March 2001, convicting the appellant of dangerous driving. The grounds of appeal are:

1. The learned Magistrate made an error of law in that he did not give sufficient reasons for his decision;

2. The learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law in that his finding of guilt was unreasonable having regard to the evidence;

3. The learned Magistrate erred in law in that he reversed the onus of proof.

2 The trial of the appellant took place on 13 March 2001 and on 15 March 2001, his Worship delivered the following reasons for decision:

"HIS WORSHIP: Sit down…

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 Savill v Cruickshank

Details

AGLC: Savill v Cruickshank [2002] WASCA 182
Case: [2002] WASCA 182
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Savill v Cruickshank was brought by the defendant, Savill, against his conviction by a Magistrate for dangerous driving. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the Magistrate's published reasons for the conviction were adequate, whether the finding of guilt was unreasonable, and whether the onus of proof was improperly reversed. The crux of the appeal hinged on whether the facts of the case warranted a different outcome.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal needed to address included the sufficiency of the Magistrate's reasons for the conviction, the reasonableness of the finding of guilt, and whether the onus of proof was improperly shifted. The court needed to examine if the reasons provided by the Magistrate were detailed enough to justify the conviction and if the decision to find the defendant guilty was supported by the evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the burden of proof was correctly allocated and whether there was any evidence of it being reversed during the trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate's reasons were adequate and that the finding of guilt was reasonable based on the evidence presented. The court also determined that there was no improper reversal of the onus of proof. The reasoning was based on the comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards. The appellate court held that the decision of the lower court was sound and that there was no basis to overturn the conviction on the grounds presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.