Traffic Act 1964 (ACT)

In the case before the court, the respondent, a pedestrian, was charged with the offence of stepping onto the carriage-way of a public street towards traffic lights while they were displaying the words "DON'T WALK" in red light. The respondent pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial where the court found the respondent guilty. The respondent appealed the decision, contending that the relevant provisions of the Traffic Ordinance were inconsistent with the Principal Ordinance, were ambiguous, and were therefore invalid. The appeal raised questions about the application of the Motor Traffic Ordinance to pedestrians, the interpretation of the Traffic Ordinance's provisions, and the validity of the relevant sections.

The court examined the relevant sections of the Traffic Ordinance and the Motor Traffic Ordinance, considering whether the provisions applied to pedestrians and whether they were consistent and unambiguous. The court found that the provisions of the Motor Traffic Ordinance applied to pedestrians, as intended by the Traffic Ordinance. The court also held that the provisions were not inconsistent with the Principal Ordinance and were not ambiguous. The court further held that the Traffic Ordinance did not render the provisions of the Motor Traffic Ordinance inapplicable to pedestrians.

The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Traffic Ordinance and the Motor Traffic Ordinance, and the court found that the provisions applied to pedestrians as intended. The court also found that the provisions were not inconsistent with the Principal Ordinance and were not ambiguous, and therefore valid. The court dismissed the respondent's appeal.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of the respondent be affirmed. The court held that the relevant provisions of the Traffic Ordinance and the Motor Traffic Ordinance applied to pedestrians and were valid, and therefore the respondent's conviction and sentence were upheld.