SMITH -v- HOPE [2001] WASCA 287
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 287 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1069/2001 | 27 AUGUST 2001 | |
| Coram: | McLURE J | 17/09/01 | |
| 20 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GLENN ROBERT SMITH TREVOR JAMES HOPE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Road traffic offence Refusal of driver's licence under s 48 of the Road Traffic Act Whether reasons for refusal adequate Whether learner's permit valid Whether a breach of s 49 of the Road Traffic Act if a valid learner's permit Application of s 24 of the Criminal Code Whether sentence manifestly excessive Appropriateness of suspended sentence |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974, s 48C, s 49(1), s 49(2)(a)(ii), s 50, s 75 Road Traffic Amendment Act No 39 of 2000 Sentencing Act 1995, s 6(4), s 39(3), s 76(2) |
Case References: | Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616 Colledge v The Queen [2001] WASCA 132 Commissioner of Police v Plumb, unreported; SCt of WA (Pidgeon J); Library No 6009; 20 September 1995 Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Horsman v Bishop [2000] WASCA 316 House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 Illich v Young [2000] WASCA 383 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 McLachlan v August (1996) 16 WAR 75 Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10 Moursellas v Pharmaceutical Council (1992) 10 WAR 240 Pettit v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Dinsdale (2000) 115 A Crim R 558 Tihanyi v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 377 Babich v Illich [2000] WASCA 133 Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999 Denton v Bodycoat [2000] WASCA 424 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Duffield v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; SCL No 950065; 14 February 1995 Eldridge v Bates (1989) 8 MVR 394 Eyre v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; SCL No 930149; 18 March 1993 Federal Commission of Taxation v Brian Hatch Timber Co (Sales) Pty Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 28 Fernando v Keady, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940135; 4 March 1994 Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129 Giris Pty Ltd v Federal Commission of Taxation (1969) 119 CLR 365 Hall v Woodthorpe, unreported; SCt of WA, Library No 2739; 5 November 1979 Horsman v Bishop [2000] WASCA 316 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kolotex Hosiery (Australia) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 132 CLR 535 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114 McKenzie v GJ Coles & Co (1988) 32 A Crim… |
Continue reading Smith v Hope
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Smith v Hope [2001] WASCA 287
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 287
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Smith was the appellant in the case before the Court of Appeal. He sought to appeal against his conviction for driving without a driver's licence. The trial judge had found Smith guilty of contravening section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, which prohibits driving without a licence. Smith argued that the reasons provided by the authorities for the refusal of his licence were inadequate and that his learner's permit was still valid. He also contested the applicability of section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, which prohibits driving without a valid licence, and whether section 24 of the Criminal Code was correctly applied. Additionally, Smith argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate.
The court had to determine whether the reasons given for the refusal of the appellant's licence were adequate under the Act. It also needed to assess the validity of the appellant's learner's permit and the applicability of section 49 in circumstances where a valid learner's permit was held. The court further considered whether the trial judge correctly applied section 24 of the Criminal Code and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. It also examined whether a suspended sentence would have been more suitable.
The court found that the reasons for the refusal of the appellant's licence were inadequate as they did not provide sufficient detail or evidence to support the decision. The court also determined that the appellant's learner's permit was valid at the time of the offence, thus negating the applicability of section 49. The court held that the trial judge correctly applied section 24 of the Criminal Code but found the sentence to be manifestly excessive. It concluded that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate in this case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to a suspended sentence.
The court ordered that the appeal be allowed in part, and the sentence be reduced to a suspended sentence. The conviction for the offence under section 48 of the Road Traffic Act was upheld, but the sentence was altered to a suspended sentence for a period of 12 months, with conditions to be determined by the trial judge.
The court had to determine whether the reasons given for the refusal of the appellant's licence were adequate under the Act. It also needed to assess the validity of the appellant's learner's permit and the applicability of section 49 in circumstances where a valid learner's permit was held. The court further considered whether the trial judge correctly applied section 24 of the Criminal Code and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. It also examined whether a suspended sentence would have been more suitable.
The court found that the reasons for the refusal of the appellant's licence were inadequate as they did not provide sufficient detail or evidence to support the decision. The court also determined that the appellant's learner's permit was valid at the time of the offence, thus negating the applicability of section 49. The court held that the trial judge correctly applied section 24 of the Criminal Code but found the sentence to be manifestly excessive. It concluded that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate in this case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to a suspended sentence.
The court ordered that the appeal be allowed in part, and the sentence be reduced to a suspended sentence. The conviction for the offence under section 48 of the Road Traffic Act was upheld, but the sentence was altered to a suspended sentence for a period of 12 months, with conditions to be determined by the trial judge.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part
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.