W, N v Police - [2019] SASC 11

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
W, N v POLICE
[2019] SASC 11
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley (ex tempore)
6 December 2018
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES
The appellant was sentenced by a magistrate in the Youth Court after pleading guilty to offences including driving while disqualified and using a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 86A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The magistrate imposed a licence disqualification for a period of three years in relation to the offence of contravening s 86A.
On appeal, it was common ground between the parties that the 12 month period of disqualification in s 86A(3) is both a minimum and a maximum period of disqualification. The appellant also argued, and the respondent rejected, that the magistrate erred in ordering that the period of disqualification be served cumulatively on the expiration of the disqualification to which the appellant was already subject.
Held: Appeal allowed.
1. The magistrate fell into error in imposing a licence disqualification of three years.
2. There was no error on the part of the magistrate in ordering that the period of disqualification be served cumulatively.
3. The appeal must be allowed and the period of disqualification set by the magistrate set aside.
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 17; Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 91; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 86A; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) 169A, 169B, referred to.
R v Sprecher [2015] SASCFC 76, discussed.

W, N v POLICE
[2019] SASC 11

STANLEY J: This is an appeal against sentence. The appeal is out of time. There is no opposition to an extension of time. I grant an extension of time to 10 October 2018.
The appellant was sentenced by a magistrate in the Youth Court after pleading guilty to offences of being unlawfully on premises, contrary to s 17(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), driving while disqualified, contrary to s 91(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) and using a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 86A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA). The appellant was sentenced to a period of six months detention, backdated to 9 August 2018. The learned magistrate also imposed a licence disqualification for a period of three years, cumulative on any existing disqualification. The disqualification was imposed in relation to the offence of contravening s 86A. Section 86A(3) provides:
86A—Using motor vehicle without consent
...
(3) Notwithstanding the Children's Protection and Young Offenders Act 1979 where the Children's Court finds a charge of an offence against this section proved against a child, the Court must (whether or not it convicts the child of the offence and in addition to any other order that it may make in relation to the child) order that the child be disqualified…

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 W, N v Police

Details

AGLC: W, N v Police [2019] SASC 11
Case: [2019] SASC 11
Decision Date: 6 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In W, N v Police, the defendant appealed against a conviction for driving an unregistered vehicle and driving after being disqualified. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his determination of the law regarding the defendant's right to appeal and whether such an error warranted a new trial.

The court considered whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law regarding the defendant's right to appeal and if there had been any error of law that could lead to the appeal being allowed. The court found that the trial judge had indeed made an error in his interpretation of the law, which had the potential to impact the fairness and outcome of the trial. Given the nature of the error, the court deemed it significant enough to warrant a new trial to ensure that the defendant received a fair hearing.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court emphasised the importance of correct legal interpretation in criminal trials, particularly where the outcome could be significantly affected by such errors. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that all legal rights, including the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal, are correctly applied and upheld.

Orders