Singh v Hodgson - [2022] WASC 334

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   SINGH -v- HODGSON [2022] WASC 334
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   29 SEPTEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   29 SEPTEMBER 2022
PUBLISHED           :   3 OCTOBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1082 of 2021
BETWEEN:   GULJINDER SINGH
Appellant

AND

PAUL HODGSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1082 of 2021
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE A HILLS-WRIGHT
File Number            :   FR 10804 OF 2020
FR 10805 OF 2020

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Single judge appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the appellant had a substantial reason for failure to comply with requirement to provide sample other than a desire to avoid providing information that may be used as evidence – Whether obligation existed to disclose body camera footage prior to trial – Whether requirement for prosecution to establish appellant was intoxicated or there was suspicion of intoxication – Whether magistrate erred in not considering facts - Road Traffic Act 1974 s 66, s 67, s 67A and s 68A

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	L J Italiano

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Cases referred to in decision:

Bromley v Bembridge [2002] WASCA 192; (2002) 132 A Crim R 16
Carew v Carone (1991) 5 WAR 1
Parfenova v Diss [2021] WASCA 50
Re Her Honour E A Woods; Ex parte Hardie Finance Corporation Ltd [2008] WASC 282
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

FORRESTER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 29 September 2022 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

On 24 November 2020, the appellant was charged with:
(1) failing to comply with the requirements of a member of the Police Force, made pursuant to s 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (RTA) to provide a sample of his breath for a preliminary test (FR 10804/2020); and
(2) failing to comply with the requirements of Senior Constable Turner, a member of the Western Australian Police, made pursuant to the provisions of s 66 of the RTA to provide a sample of his breath for analysis (FR 10805/2020).
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The appellant's trial was held in the Magistrates Court at Fremantle on 12 October 2021. After hearing all of the evidence, the magistrate found the appellant guilty of the offences and fined him $300 on the first charge and $900 on the second charge. He was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 10 months reduced by any period during which he was disqualified by a disqualification notice given to him under s 71C of the RTA for the offence.
The appellant applies for leave to appeal against the decision of the magistrate convicting him of the offences.
On 7 April 2022, a registrar…

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 Singh v Hodgson

Details

AGLC: Singh v Hodgson [2022] WASC 334
Case: [2022] WASC 334
Decision Date: 3 OCTOBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Hodgson was an appeal against a conviction in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The appellant, Singh, had been found guilty of failing to comply with a requirement to provide a sample of his blood, breath or urine for analysis under the Road Traffic Act 1974. Singh's appeal was based on whether he had a substantial reason for not providing the sample other than to avoid providing information that could be used as evidence against him, and whether the obligation existed for the prosecution to disclose body camera footage prior to the trial. Additionally, Singh contended that the requirement for the prosecution to establish that he was intoxicated or that there was suspicion of intoxication should have been considered, and that the magistrate erred in not considering the relevant facts.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant had a substantial reason for failing to comply with the requirement to provide a sample other than a desire to avoid providing information that may be used as evidence. The court also needed to consider whether the obligation existed for the prosecution to disclose body camera footage prior to the trial, and whether the requirement for the prosecution to establish that the appellant was intoxicated or that there was suspicion of intoxication should have been considered. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the magistrate erred in not considering the relevant facts.

The court found that the appellant's failure to provide a sample was not due to a substantial reason other than to avoid providing information that could be used as evidence against him. The court also held that there was no obligation for the prosecution to disclose body camera footage prior to the trial. The court found that the requirement for the prosecution to establish that the appellant was intoxicated or that there was suspicion of intoxication was not relevant in this case, as the offence of failing to comply with a requirement to provide a sample did not require proof of intoxication. The court held that the magistrate did not err in not considering the relevant facts, as the appellant's failure to provide a sample was the primary issue in the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The court did not consider it necessary to make any orders.

Orders