TICKLER -v- TARBETT [2012] WASC 85

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 85
Case No:	SJA:1088/2011	Heard:	14 MARCH 2012
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	14/03/12
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Conviction set aside
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER TICKLER IAN ALEXANDER TARBETT
Catchwords:	Leave to appeal Appealing from a plea of guilty Miscarriage of justice Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 15(3) Driving an unlicensed vehicle
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(2), s 9(2) Road Traffic (Licensing) Regulations 1975 (WA), reg 4C(5) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 15(3)
Case References:	Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254 Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102 Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 Nelson v Haynes (2003) 27 WAR 154 Re The State of Western Australia; Ex parte Worswick [2005] WASCA 187 Samuels v The State of Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473 Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : TICKLER -v- TARBETT [2012] WASC 85 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 14 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 14 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1088 of 2011 BETWEEN : PETER TICKLER

Appellant

AND

IAN ALEXANDER TARBETT

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

File No : PE 32259 of 2011

Catchwords:

Leave to appeal - Appealing from a plea of guilty - Miscarriage of justice - Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 15(3) - Driving an unlicensed vehicle

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(2), s 9(2)

Road Traffic (Licensing) Regulations 1975 (WA), reg 4C(5)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 15(3)

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms C A Lakewood

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102
Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Nelson v Haynes (2003) 27 WAR 154
Re The State of Western Australia; Ex parte Worswick [2005] WASCA 187
Samuels v The State of Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129

(Page 3)

PRITCHARD J

Introduction

1 Mr Tickler was charged on 13 June 2011 with using a vehicle on a road when there was no valid vehicle licence granted for that vehicle, contrary to s 15(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (the Act). Mr Tickler entered an endorsed plea of guilty to that offence, and on 26 July 2011 was convicted in the Magistrates Court, and ordered to pay a fine, court costs, and an additional penalty equal to the charges payable for the grant of a…

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 Tickler v TARBETT

Details

AGLC: Tickler v TARBETT [2012] WASC 85
Case: [2012] WASC 85
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tickler v TARBETT involved the defendant, TARBETT, who was found guilty of driving an unlicensed vehicle under section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The defendant appealed the conviction on the basis that there was a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was asked to determine whether the conviction was flawed and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The court considered whether the conviction of the defendant was unjust due to a procedural error or an error of law. The defendant argued that the process leading to the conviction was flawed and that this constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to examine the evidence presented at the original trial and the legal principles that should have been applied. The key issue was whether the procedural errors were so significant that they affected the fairness of the trial and the validity of the conviction.

The court found that there were indeed procedural errors in the original trial that were substantial enough to affect the fairness of the proceedings. These errors led to a miscarriage of justice, as the defendant's right to a fair trial was compromised. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. The court held that the errors were not trivial and that they undermined the integrity of the trial process.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and set aside the conviction against the defendant. The defendant's appeal was successful, and the conviction was quashed due to the identified miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside

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.