STOCKHAM -v- CLARKE [2014] WASC 157

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 157
Case No:	SJA:1052/2013	Heard:	9 SEPTEMBER 2013
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	7/05/14
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AYR RAY STOCKHAM RYAN DAVID CLARKE
Catchwords:	Appeal Whether the conviction of a person for an offence for reckless driving while that person was under the age of 18 years is after the expiry of two years to be regarded as a previous conviction for the purposes of s 60(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) Statutory construction Section 60(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and s 189(8)(c) of the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA)
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(1), s 9(2) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60 Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 189
Case References:	Anderson v Edwards [2003] WASCA 59 Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children's Services (2012) 248 CLR 1 Heydon v Webb (1987) 5 MVR 283 Pavlovic v Spooner [2014] WASCA 31

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : STOCKHAM -v- CLARKE [2014] WASC 157 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 9 SEPTEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 7 MAY 2014 FILE NO/S : SJA 1052 of 2013 BETWEEN : AYR RAY STOCKHAM

Appellant

AND

RYAN DAVID CLARKE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN

File No : MI 12426 of 2012, MI 12427 of 2012, MI 12428 of 2012, MI 12429 of 2012

Catchwords:

Appeal - Whether the conviction of a person for an offence for reckless driving while that person was under the age of 18 years is after the expiry of two years to be regarded as a previous conviction for the purposes of s 60(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)

Statutory construction - Section 60(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and s 189(8)(c) of the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(1), s 9(2)

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60
Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 189

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms N R Sinton

Respondent : Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Anderson v Edwards [2003] WASCA 59
Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children's Services (2012) 248 CLR 1
Heydon v Webb (1987) 5 MVR 283
Pavlovic v Spooner [2014] WASCA 31

1 LE MIERE J: This appeal turns on a question of law which is a question of statutory construction. The question is whether the conviction of a person for an offence of reckless driving while that person was under the age of 18 years is, after the expiry of two years, to be regarded…

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 Stockham v Clarke

Details

AGLC: Stockham v Clarke [2014] WASC 157
Case: [2014] WASC 157
Decision Date: 7 MAY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stockham v Clarke, the appellant, Stockham, contested the conviction imposed upon him for reckless driving while he was under the age of 18. The dispute centred on whether this conviction, occurring more than two years prior, could be deemed a "previous conviction" under section 60(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The matter was brought before the court to determine the applicability of the statutory provisions in this context.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 60(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) in conjunction with section 189(8)(c) of the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA). The court had to decide if a conviction for reckless driving, occurring when the offender was under 18, should be considered a "previous conviction" under section 60(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act after the statutory two-year period had elapsed.

The court examined the statutory language and legislative intent, ultimately concluding that the conviction in question did not qualify as a "previous conviction" under the circumstances. The court held that the legislative framework did not intend to include convictions from a period when the offender was under 18 as "previous convictions" after two years. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.

No further orders were made by the court beyond granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the applicability of previous convictions under specific legislative conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

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.