TURNER -v- HUGHES [2000] WASCA 276
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 276 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1084/2000 | 14 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MILLER J | 26/09/00 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Decision of learned Magistrate set aside Matter remitted for re-hearing before a different Magistrate | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | IAN MATHEW TURNER ROBERT HUGHES |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Prima facie case Test Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm/bodily harm Whether Magistrate erred in upholding submission of no case What constitutes dangerous driving Practice and procedure Obligations of Crown prosecutor in relation to calling witnesses Decision to call for defence Application to re-open Objection by defence after earlier demand witnesses be called Refusal by Magistrate to allow Whether miscarriage of justice |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974, s 59, s 59A Road Traffic Code |
Case References: | A M Smith v R [1976] WAR 97 Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207 Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd & Anor (1998) 19 WAR 482 R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321 R v Gosney [1971] 2 QB 674 R v Hinz [1972] Qd R 272 R v Kizon & Kizon (1985) 18 A Crim R 59 R v Webb [1986] 2 Qd R 446 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Johnstone & Ors v Owen-Byrne & Anor [1998], unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980192; 16 April 1998 Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390 Moss v Kimber (1986) 4 MVR 380 R v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671 Skubevski v R [1977] WAR 129 Whitehorn (1983) 152 CLR 657 Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 Yousseff (1990) 50 A Crim R 1 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
ROBERT HUGHES
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Prima facie case - Test - Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm/bodily harm - Whether Magistrate erred in upholding submission of no case - What constitutes dangerous driving
Practice and procedure - Obligations of Crown prosecutor in relation to calling witnesses - Decision to call for defence - Application to re-open - Objection by defence after earlier demand witnesses be called - Refusal by Magistrate to allow - Whether miscarriage of justice
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974, s 59, s 59A
Road Traffic Code
(Page 2)
Result:
Decision of learned Magistrate set aside
Matter remitted for re-hearing before a different Magistrate
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S P Pallaras QC & Ms J A Girdham
Respondent : Mr M T Trowell QC
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Mark Andrews & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
A M Smith v R [1976] WAR 97
Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty…
Continue reading Turner v Hughes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Turner v Hughes [2000] WASCA 276
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Turner v Hughes involved a dispute regarding a criminal charge of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. Turner, the accused, was prosecuted by the Hughes, the representative of the Crown. The matter was heard and determined by a Magistrate in the lower court. Turner appealed the decision to the higher court, arguing that the Magistrate erred in upholding the Crown's submission that no case had been made out for the jury to consider.
The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the Magistrate correctly applied the test for determining whether a prima facie case had been made out for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. Turner contended that the Magistrate had misapplied the legal principles in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to the jury. The court had to consider the obligations of the Crown prosecutor in relation to calling witnesses and the implications of the Crown's decision to call for the defence. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the Magistrate's refusal to allow Turner's application to re-open the case after the earlier demand for witnesses to be called amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
In its decision, the higher court found that the Magistrate had indeed erred in upholding the Crown's submission of no case. The court held that the Magistrate had misapplied the test for determining whether a prima facie case had been made out for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The court further found that the Crown's decision to call for the defence and the subsequent refusal to allow Turner's application to re-open the case after the earlier demand for witnesses to be called amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the decision of the learned Magistrate was set aside, and the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a different Magistrate.
The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the Magistrate correctly applied the test for determining whether a prima facie case had been made out for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. Turner contended that the Magistrate had misapplied the legal principles in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to the jury. The court had to consider the obligations of the Crown prosecutor in relation to calling witnesses and the implications of the Crown's decision to call for the defence. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the Magistrate's refusal to allow Turner's application to re-open the case after the earlier demand for witnesses to be called amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
In its decision, the higher court found that the Magistrate had indeed erred in upholding the Crown's submission of no case. The court held that the Magistrate had misapplied the test for determining whether a prima facie case had been made out for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The court further found that the Crown's decision to call for the defence and the subsequent refusal to allow Turner's application to re-open the case after the earlier demand for witnesses to be called amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the decision of the learned Magistrate was set aside, and the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a different Magistrate.
Orders
Orders of the court
Decision of learned Magistrate set aside
Matter remitted for re-hearing before a different Magistrate
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.