Legal Research
Cases
Scarce v Killalea

Scarce v Killalea

Case [2003] WASCA 81 16 April 2003

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: SCARCE -v- KILLALEA [2003] WASCA 81

CORAM: MCLURE J

HEARD: 26 FEBRUARY 2003

DELIVERED : 16 APRIL 2003

FILE NO/S: SJA 1132 of 2002

BETWEEN: ANTHONY DONALD SCARCE
Appellant
AND
SEAN PATRICK KILLALEA
Respondent

Catchwords:

Justices - Whether necessary factual findings to support conviction - Whether convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory - When duty to report accident arises under s 55 of the Road Traffic Act ("RTA") - Whether reversal of onus of proof of amount of damage under s 55 RTA - Whether a request for information sufficient under s 58 of RTA - Role of McKenzie friend - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA), s 16(2)
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 72, s 199(3)

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 55, s 58, s 62

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Dowling v Bowie (1952) 86 CLR 136
Harvey v Matthews [1999] WASCA 58
Illich v Garvey [2001] WASCA 236
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 All ER 1034
Murray v The Queen (2002) 189 ALR 40; [2002] HCA 26
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Schagen v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 410
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd
.......... (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588
Vigus v Mann [1961] WAR 157
Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512

Case(s) also cited:

Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
R v Dodd (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 282

MCLURE J:

Introduction

The appellant was charged with three offences under the Road Traffic Act (1974) (WA) ("Act") arising out of an incident that occurred on 16 November 2001. In particular, the appellant was charged that on:
(a)16 November 2001 he drove a motor vehicle registered number 9HI 324 ("vehicle") on a road, namely Beach Road without due care and attention contrary to s 62 of the Act;
(b)16 November 2001 being the driver of the vehicle in the course of the use of which on Beach Road an accident occurred, whereby damage was caused to property and not having reasonable cause for believing that damage caused did not exceed in the aggregate, an amount of $1,000, and not being disabled by personal injury himself, he failed to report such accident forthwith to the Officer in Charge of the nearest police station contrary to s 55 of the Act;
(c)11 December 2001 being the owner of the vehicle, when required by a member of the Western Australian police force to give information which it was in his power to give, which may have led to the identification of any person who was driving or in…

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 Scarce v Killalea

Details

AGLC: Scarce v Killalea [2003] WASCA 81
Case: [2003] WASCA 81
Decision Date: 16 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Scarce v Killalea, the matter before the court involved the defendants, who were charged with several traffic offences following an incident in which they collided with a motorcycle. The case was brought before the court to determine the validity of their convictions under the Road Traffic Act, specifically regarding the necessity of factual findings and the proper procedure for reporting accidents under the Act. The defendants argued that their convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the lack of necessary findings by the court and improper application of certain sections of the RTA.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the necessary factual findings were made to support the defendants' convictions. Additionally, the court had to determine if the reversal of the onus of proof for the amount of damage under section 55 of the RTA was correctly applied. Furthermore, the court considered whether the defendants' request for information was sufficient under section 58 of the RTA and the role of a McKenzie friend in the proceedings. The court's decision would turn on the facts of this case, including the applicability of the RTA provisions and the procedural fairness of the proceedings.

The court found that the convictions were indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the lack of necessary factual findings by the court. The court held that the reversal of the onus of proof under section 55 of the RTA was not applicable in this case, and that the request for information made by the defendants was sufficient under section 58 of the RTA. The court also noted that the role of a McKenzie friend did not infringe on the defendants' rights, as they were permitted to be accompanied by someone of their choice in the proceedings. The court concluded that the convictions were not supported by the necessary factual findings and therefore quashed the convictions.

The final orders of the court were that the convictions of the defendants were quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the lower court for a new trial to allow for the necessary factual findings to be made. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all necessary facts are established before convicting a defendant in a traffic offence case, in order to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and protect the rights of the accused.

Orders