Troy Geoffrey Evans v Alan John Shiels - [2004] ACTSC 19

TROY GEOFFREY EVANS v ALAN JOHN SHIELS
[2004] ACTSC 19 (16 April 2004)

APPEAL – decision by Magistrate to adjourn proceedings before determining sentence – Griffiths bond – whether appropriate for appellate review.

APPEAL – whether s 48A Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 provides general appeal right to the Supreme Court from a decision of any inferior court or tribunal.

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, s 48A

Crimes Act 1900, s 402

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 23

Criminal Appeal Act 1907

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 20

Periodic Detention Act 1985

Bail Act 1992

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court (Transfer) Bill 1992

Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293

Selles and ACT Director of Public Prosecutions v Bailey [2000] ACTSC 111

Chamberlain v The Queen [No2] (1984) 153 CLR 521

R v McLeod (1890) 11 LR (NSW) 218

Kelly v Apps [2000] FCA 687, (2000) 98 FCR 101

Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259

Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29, (2000) 203 CLR 1

FAI Properties Pty Ltd v Nationwide Travel Canberra Pty Ltd [2000] ACTSC 82

FAI Properties Pty Ltd v Apostolopoulos [2002] ACTSC 58

Harrison v Commissioner for Housing [2003] ACTSC 22

Conway v R [2002] HCA 2, (2002) 186 ALR 328

Freidland ML, New Trial After Appeal from Conviction (1968) 84 LQR 48 &105

Miles CJ, Justice at the Seat of Government (1992) 66 ALR 555

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT

No SCA 1 of 2004

Judge: Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 16 April 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No SCA 1 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:TROY GEOFFREY EVANS
Appellant

AND:ALAN JOHN SHIELS
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Connolly J
Date:  16 April 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

This application is said to be an appeal pursuant to s 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (the Australian Capital Territory (Self- Government) Act) from the whole of the orders made by Magistrate Dingwall on 12 December 2003. The substantive matter involves an allegation that the respondent at about 1 am on 4 June 2003 did drive a motor vehicle with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. The learned Magistrate found the offence proven, but adjourned the sentencing of the offender, and it is in substance that decision that is sought to be the subject of this appeal.

The facts of the matter, as found by the learned Magistrate, was that the respondent, who was an employee of a car dealer, drove in his work supplied vehicle to a bar in Phillip after work. He consumed a quantity of alcohol and formed the opinion that he should not drive himself to his home in Queanbeyan. He ordered a taxi to collect him from the establishment. He had parked his vehicle in a place that he considered unsafe, so he got into…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Troy Geoffrey Evans v Alan John Shiels and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] ACTSC 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Troy Geoffrey Evans appeals against the decision of Magistrate Dingwall, handed down on 12 December 2003, to adjourn the sentencing of Alan John Shiels, who was found guilty of driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. The appeal hinges on whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the Magistrate's decision to defer sentencing under section 402 of the Crimes Act 1900, and if the Magistrate erred in imposing bail conditions that allegedly included a financial penalty not authorised by the Bail Act 1992.

The court examines whether the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 confers a general appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to review decisions of inferior courts. Connolly J concludes that the appeal lies only if there is a specific statutory provision allowing it. The court finds that section 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, which grants the Supreme Court all necessary appellate jurisdiction, does not create a general right of appeal. Instead, it confirms the breadth of the Supreme Court's judicial power but does not provide for broad appellate review independent of specific statutory provisions. This aligns with established legal principles that appeal rights depend on express statutory provisions.

Regarding the bail conditions, the court determines that the Magistrate did not impose an unauthorised financial penalty. The condition for the respondent to obey reasonable directions of ACT Corrective Services could involve attending an alcohol and driving course, which may incur a cost, but does not constitute an invalid bail condition.

Ultimately, Connolly J dismisses the appeal, holding that the Magistrate's decision to adjourn sentencing is not subject to appellate review in the absence of a specific legislative provision. The court also finds no error in the bail conditions imposed.

Orders