Toner v Beecroft - [2018] VSC 229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2018 00240

NICK TONER	Plaintiff
v
BRADLEY BEECROFT	First Defendant
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Lansdowne AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 April 2018
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS:	10 May 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Toner v Beecroft & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 229

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Conviction by County Court for road safety offence on appeal from the Magistrates’ Court – Whether open to the judge to convict in the absence of evidence from the informant – Whether judge’s reasons adequate – Held: no error shown – Proceeding dismissed – Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) ss 49 (1)(e), 55(2), 49(1)(a) and (b)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the First Defendant	Mr M Phillips	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Facts...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Appeal in the County Court............................................................................................................. 2

The charge...................................................................................................................................... 2
The evidence and submissions.................................................................................................... 3

Judicial review.................................................................................................................................... 7

Grounds in this case and plaintiff’s submissions..................................................................... 9
Defendant’s submissions........................................................................................................... 11

Discussion......................................................................................................................................... 12

Matters raised by Mr Toner....................................................................................................... 12
Absence of the informant........................................................................................................... 13
Adequacy of reasons................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion and orders.................................................................................................................... 19

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff Mr Toner seeks judicial review of the determination by his Honour Judge Murphy of the County Court of the plaintiff’s de novo appeal from a road safety conviction. I heard the review at trial on 20 April 2018, on referral from his Honour Justice Ginnane. I gave brief oral reasons on that day for dismissing the proceeding. These written reasons elaborate on those oral reasons.

Facts

On 28 July 2016 the first defendant, Senior Constable Bradley Beecroft, and Leading Senior Constable Brendan Achammer, both of Myrtleford Police, were directed to locate the plaintiff following a telephone call by his mother to Myrtleford Police expressing concern that he had been drinking and had driven away from her farm property when she asked him to turn down the music he was playing. Constables Beecroft and Achammer found him near his parked car, which had the keys in the ignition, on a road at the rear of his mother’s property. He was listening to music. Constable Beecroft required him to accompany the two officers to Myrtleford Police Station for a breath test. The plaintiff refused. Constable Beecroft subsequently filed and served a charge on summons against the plaintiff for refusing the demand pursuant to s 49(1)(e) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) (the Act).

The plaintiff was convicted of the charge at Myrtleford Magistrates’ Court on 19 May 2017. His licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from driving for four years from that date and fined $750. The plaintiff filed a conviction and sentence appeal which was heard by Judge Murphy of the County Court on 13 November 2017. The charge was heard afresh…

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 Toner v Beecroft

Details

AGLC: Toner v Beecroft [2018] VSC 229
Case: [2018] VSC 229
Decision Date: 20 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Toner v Beecroft, the appellant, Toner, was convicted in the County Court for a road safety offence under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) after an appeal from a conviction in the Magistrates’ Court. The respondent, Beecroft, sought judicial review of the conviction, questioning the legality of the County Court’s decision in the absence of evidence from the informant, and whether the judge’s reasons for the conviction were adequate. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity of the conviction process and the sufficiency of the evidence provided.

The court examined whether the absence of evidence from the informant meant that the conviction was unlawful, and whether the judge’s reasons for the conviction were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic). Specifically, the court considered whether the judge was justified in convicting Toner under sections 49(1)(e), 55(2), 49(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of these statutory provisions and the procedural fairness in the conviction process.

After thorough examination, the court found no error in the County Court’s decision. The court held that the judge was not required to hear evidence from the informant, and the reasons provided were adequate for the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision confirmed that the conviction process was lawful and the evidence provided was sufficient to support the decision.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the conviction of Toner for the road safety offence. The court upheld the decision of the County Court and rejected the grounds of the appeal raised by the respondent. The judgment clarified the legal framework within which such convictions could be made and affirmed the procedural integrity of the County Court’s decision.

Orders