THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -v- WILSON [2014] WADC 101

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 101
Case No:	APP:36/2014	Heard:	4 AUGUST 2014
Coram:	STAUDE DCJ	Delivered:	7/08/14
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DARREN LEE WILSON
Catchwords:	Appeal Road Traffic Act 1974 Disqualification notice Application to revoke notice Whether a viable defence is a relevant consideration in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 s 71C, s 71F
Case References:	Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29 Baker v R (2004) 223 CLR 513 Police v Conway; Police v Parker (2006) SASC 186 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Tieleman v The Queen [2004] WASCA 285 Zheng v Cai [2009] HCA 32; (2009) 239 CLR 446

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -v- WILSON [2014] WADC 101 CORAM : STAUDE DCJ HEARD : 4 AUGUST 2014 DELIVERED : 7 AUGUST 2014 FILE NO/S : APP 36 of 2014 BETWEEN : THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Appellant

AND

DARREN LEE WILSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE FLYNN

File No : MC 314 of 2014

Catchwords:

Appeal - Road Traffic Act 1974 - Disqualification notice - Application to revoke notice - Whether a viable defence is a relevant consideration in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 s 71C, s 71F

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D Anderson

Respondent : Mr S J Blyth

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Solicitors Office

Respondent : Lewis Blyth & Hooper

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

Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Baker v R (2004) 223 CLR 513
Police v Conway; Police v Parker (2006) SASC 186
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Tieleman v The Queen [2004] WASCA 285
Zheng v Cai [2009] HCA 32; (2009) 239 CLR 446

STAUDE DCJ

Statutory background

1 Section 71C of the Road Traffic Act 1974 empowers a police officer who has reason to suspect that a person has committed a drink-driving offence to give the alleged offender a disqualification notice, the effect of which is to disqualify the alleged offender from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of two months.

2 Section 71E provides that a police officer must revoke a disqualification notice if the officer becomes aware that the breath analysing equipment used was faulty at the time of the analysis or a charge is not laid within 10 days after the time when the notice was given or a charge for the offence to which the notice relates is discontinued.

3 The disqualification notice must include a statement…

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 The Commissioner of Police v Wilson

Details

AGLC: The Commissioner of Police v Wilson [2014] WADC 101
Case: [2014] WADC 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, the Commissioner of Police, sought to appeal the decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, which allowed the respondent, Darren Lee Wilson, to apply for the revocation of a disqualification notice issued under section 71C of the Road Traffic Act 1974. The appeal raised the issue of whether the viability of a defence was a relevant consideration in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, as required by section 71F of the Act. The District Court of Western Australia was required to decide on the appropriate interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" and whether it should include the merits of any defence that the alleged offender may have to the charge for which the disqualification notice was issued.

The court considered the statutory purpose of section 71F and the legislative intent behind the Road Traffic Act 1974. It examined the extrinsic material, including the Parliamentary debates and the explanatory memorandum, to determine the intention of the legislature in enacting the provision. The court concluded that the purpose of section 71F was to provide a broad and unfettered discretion to the courts in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist. The court found that the extrinsic material did not mandate a different outcome but was consistent with an intention to confer a broad discretion.

The court also discussed the principles of statutory construction and found that the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" should not be confined to exclude the circumstances of the offence and the prospects of a successful defence. The court held that the viability of a defence, along with other factors, could constitute exceptional circumstances and that such consideration would not amount to a prejudgment of the charge.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, finding that the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" is not confined to exclude consideration of a viable defence in determining whether the discretion to order revocation of a disqualification notice should be exercised. The court's decision was consistent with the text of the legislation and its evident purpose.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders