Taylor v Honan - [2005] QDC 351

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor v Honan [2005] QDC 351

PARTIES:

DARREN RODNEY TAYLOR
Appellant

v

CHRISTOPHER KELVIN HONAN
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD758 of 2005

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2005

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal – appeal from Magistrate – meaning of “in charge” of motor vehicle – whether learned Magistrate erred not making finding of fact

Justices Act s223(1)
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s79(1)(c), s79(6), s124(t)

Aldrich v Ross (2001) 2 QdR 235, 257 FAA
Atkinson v Fox Appeal from Justices District Court, Brisbane No 69 of 1992 FAA
Brooks v Spasovski (2004) QDC 471 CON
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472, 479 FAA
Kunze v Vowles; ex parte Vowles (1955) ST. R Qd. 591 CON
Raines v Roberts [1953] 1 WLR 309 CON
Wynne v Campbell; ex parte Campbell (1968) QWN 7 FAA

COUNSEL:

Appellant – self-represented
Respondent – Mr Hungerford-Symes

SOLICITORS:

Appellant – self-represented
Respondent – Director of Public Prosecutions

This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Magistrate at Brisbane who, on 23 February 2005, found the appellant guilty of the offence:-

“That on the 19^th of September 2004 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland whilst he was under the influence of liquor or a drug was in charge of a motor vehicle, namely a motor car on a road, namely Oateson Skyline Drive, Brisbane.”

The grounds of appeal are:-

“The conviction in unsafe and satisfactory, the wrong test was applied on the conviction, I was self-represented and was given no assistance from the Magistrate, I was told I should have put things to witnesses that I did not know about and it should have been reasonable for the Magistrate to ask it to clarify a point, any other matters arising.”

In the appellant’s outline of submissions, after setting out what he says are the circumstances of the offence, he states under the heading of “other matters” the following:-

“(a)       that if another person has driven the car as stated on oath   and still has the key to the car then it is deemed that person   is the person in charge.
(b)       that in today’s car the keys have an overbearing on the                     ability to operate the car with possession of the keys a   evidently point this was not established at the hearing by   the facts, the only keys that were said to be produced one   officer identified as a set of xf Falcon keys with the other   not knowing, neither had tried them in the car.
(c)       that when the property book from Brisbane cells was asked   for it could not be found as it would have had an entry for a   set of keys if there were any keys.
(d)       that when I arrived home that night I had to awaken my                    house mate as I had no house key…

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 Taylor v Honan

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Honan [2005] QDC 351
Case: [2005] QDC 351
Decision Date: 17 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a conviction of the appellant, Taylor, for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (Qld). The learned Magistrate found that Taylor was not in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence, which led to the dismissal of the charge. Honan, the respondent, sought an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate erred in not making a finding of fact regarding whether Taylor was in charge of the motor vehicle at the time of the offence. The court had to determine the meaning of "in charge" of a motor vehicle and whether the Magistrate's failure to make a finding on this issue constituted an error.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (Qld) and considered the statutory interpretation of the term "in charge." It was held that the term encompasses not only the person driving the vehicle but also those who have control or responsibility over the vehicle. The court emphasised the importance of the Magistrate making a finding on whether Taylor was in charge of the vehicle, as it was a critical element of the offence. However, the court found that the error in not making a finding of fact did not necessarily lead to an unfair outcome in this case. The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that there was no reasonable possibility that the result would have been different if the Magistrate had made a finding on the issue of whether Taylor was in charge.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Magistrate. The court found that the error in not making a finding of fact regarding whether Taylor was in charge of the vehicle did not result in an unfair outcome, as the evidence presented did not support a finding that Taylor was in charge. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	Taylor v Honan [2005] QDC 351
PARTIES:	DARREN RODNEY TAYLOR Appellant v CHRISTOPHER KELVIN HONAN Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD758 of 2005
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2005
JUDGE:	Samios DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Appeal – appeal from Magistrate – meaning of “in charge” of motor vehicle – whether learned Magistrate erred not making finding of fact Justices Act s223(1) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s79(1)(c), s79(6), s124(t) Aldrich v Ross (2001) 2 QdR 235, 257 FAA Atkinson v Fox Appeal from Justices District Court, Brisbane No 69 of 1992 FAA Brooks v Spasovski (2004) QDC 471 CON Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472, 479 FAA Kunze v Vowles; ex parte Vowles (1955) ST. R Qd. 591 CON Raines v Roberts [1953] 1 WLR 309 CON Wynne v Campbell; ex parte Campbell (1968) QWN 7 FAA
COUNSEL:	Appellant – self-represented Respondent – Mr Hungerford-Symes
SOLICITORS:	Appellant – self-represented Respondent – Director of Public Prosecutions