Aitken v Weary (1985) 2 MVR 378
Bromley v Bembridge [2002] WASCA 192
Carew v Carone (1991) 5 WAR 1
Illich v Garvey [2001] WASCA 236
Mano v Iriks [1999] WASCA 180
Moulds v R, unreported; CCA of SCt of WA; Library No 980147; 4 March 1998
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
R v Kingston [1986] 2 Qd R 114
Scarce v Killalea [2003] WASCA 81
The Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Western Australia Inc v Hammarquist & Anor [2003] WASCA 35

Case(s) also cited:

Bryant v Drexel, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980239; 29 April 1998
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Mical v Ward (2003) WASCA 149
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v O'Grady (2003) QCA 137
R v Osborne (2002) VSCA 156
R v Sessions (1997) 95 A Crim R 151
R v Teremoana (1990) 54 SASR 30
Wade v The Queen (2001) WASCA 252
Walsh v The Queen (1996) 6 Tas R 70
WK v The Queen (2002) WASCA 176

JOHNSON J: The appellant appeals the decision of a Magistrate given in the Court of Petty Sessions at Joondalup on 26 November 2003. The appellant was charged under s 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) ("RTA") with failing to stop immediately after the occurrence of an accident. The appellant pleaded guilty to this offence. The penalty imposed included a 3‑month period of disqualification of his driver's licence.
In the grounds of appeal against sentence the appellant raises the following three issues:
(i)that the period of suspension was manifestly excessive;
(ii)that the Magistrate took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to consider the appellant's mitigating circumstances; and
(iii)that the Magistrate took into account matters he found proved in the further charge brought against the appellant.
The transcript reveals that the appellant had on an earlier occasion pleaded guilty to the offence of failing to stop but the matter was adjourned for "a hearing as to the facts". At the commencement of the hearing on 26 November 2003, counsel for the appellant agreed that the listing on that date was for the dual purpose of determining…

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 Staley v Lopes

Details

AGLC: Staley v Lopes [2005] WASCA 75
Case: [2005] WASCA 75
Decision Date: 18 APRIL 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the respondent, Lopes, against his conviction and sentence was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Lopes had been found guilty of failing to report an accident and failing to stop after an accident. The conviction and sentence were both challenged on appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether Lopes had a sufficient defence of honest and reasonable belief that he had not caused death or injury, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

The court considered the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. In relation to the first issue, the court found that Lopes had not established a sufficient defence as he had failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether there had been any injuries caused by the accident. The court also considered the evidence in relation to the sentence and found that while Lopes had no previous convictions, the court was required to consider the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence of three months' disqualification was not excessive, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that Lopes pay costs of the appeal.

Orders