SPRINGALL v Police - [2007] SASC 425

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
SPRINGALL v POLICE
[2007] SASC 425
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Layton)
5 December 2007
TRAFFIC LAW - LICENSING OF DRIVERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - DISQUALIFICATION, AND CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION OF LICENCES - OTHER CASES
Appellant the holder of a New South Wales driver's licence which was suspended pending the determination of a traffic charge laid against her in New South Wales - appellant drove in South Australia while licence remained suspended - appellant convicted in South Australia of driving whilst suspended contrary to Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 91 - appeal from magistrate to single judge who upheld conviction. Whether Motor Vehicles Act (SA) s 91 applies to a driver's licence suspended under an Act of another State or Territory - consideration of requirements for an interstate licence holder to drive in this State - whether s 91 requires the suspension of a licence to have occurred pursuant to an Act of the Parliament of South Australia.
Held: s 91 applies to interstate suspension of licences. Appeal dismissed.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 91, s 97A; Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (NSW) s 9(4)(a); The Road Transport (General) Act 1909 (NSW); Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 4(1), referred to.

SPRINGALL v POLICE
[2007] SASC 425
Full Court: Duggan, Bleby and Layton JJ

DUGGAN J. The appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of a breach of s 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) (“the Act”). The complaint which was laid against her originally alleged that, on 18 February 2004, at Salisbury North the appellant drove a motor vehicle on Waterloo Corner Road while she was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.
The facts can be summarised as follows. The appellant was the holder of a driver’s licence issued in New South Wales. On 14 June 2001 she was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a public road in New South Wales while there was present in her blood a prescribed concentration of alcohol contrary to s 9(4)(a) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (NSW).
When charged, the appellant was served with a “Notice of Suspension and Confiscation of Driver’s Licence” pursuant to The Road Transport (General) Act 1909 (NSW) which had the effect of suspending her driver’s licence until the charge was determined by a magistrate.
The appellant appeared at the Broken Hill Local Court for the hearing of the charge and was remanded on bail for sentence to 11 March 2002. She failed to appear on this date and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
On 18 February 2004 the appellant was stopped by police while she was driving a vehicle on Waterloo Corner Road in South Australia. She produced her New South Wales driver’s licence to the police. As she had not been dealt with for the driving offence in New…

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 SPRINGALL v Police

Details

AGLC: SPRINGALL v Police [2007] SASC 425
Case: [2007] SASC 425
Decision Date: 5 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Springall v Police involved the appellant, the holder of a New South Wales driver's licence, who drove in South Australia while her licence was suspended pending a traffic charge in New South Wales. This led to her conviction under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) for driving while suspended. The appellant appealed her conviction to a single judge who upheld the decision, prompting a further appeal. The central issue was whether the South Australian Motor Vehicles Act section 91 applies to a driver's licence that has been suspended under the laws of another state or territory.

The court examined the requirements for an interstate licence holder to drive in South Australia, focusing on whether the suspension of a licence must have occurred under the laws of South Australia for section 91 to apply. The court considered the legislative intent behind section 91 and whether it was meant to apply to suspensions imposed by other jurisdictions. The analysis involved interpreting the statutory language and the scope of the Act's provisions concerning interstate drivers.

The court concluded that the South Australian Motor Vehicles Act section 91 does apply to a driver's licence suspended under the laws of another state or territory. The court found that the Act's provisions were intended to cover all drivers operating within South Australia, regardless of where their licence was issued or suspended. The suspension of a licence in another jurisdiction is sufficient to invoke the protections and penalties of section 91 if the driver operates a vehicle in South Australia while suspended. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the conviction of the appellant.

Orders