WALKER v Police - [2014] SASC 32

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
WALKER v POLICE
[2014] SASC 32
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue
13 March 2014
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - OBLIGATORY AND DISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS - OTHER PARTICULAR CASES - WHERE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH DEGREE OF SUBSTANTIALITY NECESSARY
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - LIMITATION OF TIME FOR PROSECUTION
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Appeal against refusal by a Magistrate of application for summary dismissal of complaint as being out of time.
On 12 March 2012, an expiation notice was issued to the defendant for exceeding the speed limit and breaching his provisional licence. The expiation notice showed that he had 32 days to pay. The defendant elected to be prosecuted.
On 21 September 2012, the Police filed a complaint in the Magistrates Court.
The defendant argued that the expiation notice was invalid because section 6(1)(c) of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA) requires an expiation notice to specify that the expiation fee is to be paid within 28 days and the notice specified 32 days. If the expiation notice was invalid, section 52(1)(a) of the Summary Proceedure Act 1921 (SA) required the complaint to be filed within six months of the date of the offence and the complaint was filed out of time.
A Magistrate refused the summary dismissal application.
Held (dismissing the appeal):
1. Assuming that the expiation notice breached the requirement imposed by section 6(1)(c), on the proper construction of the Act, such a breach does not render an expiation notice void (at [24]-[29]).
2. There was substantial compliance with the requirements of section 6(1)(c) given that the expiation notice allowed an additional four days for payment of the expiation fee (at [30]-[32]).
3. Appeal dismissed (at [34]).
Australian Road Rules r 20; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 45A; Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA) ss 4, 5(1), 6(1), 8, 8A, 9,11, 11A, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(1)(b), 16(2), 16(3), 16(5), 16(6), 16(7); Expiation of Offences Regulations 2011 (SA) Sch 1, Cl 1(1)(e); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42(1a)(c); Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 81A(13), s 145(1)(n) ; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) ss 47G, 176(1a)(j); Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) ss 52, 52(1)(a), referred to.
Lloyd v Police [2004] SASC 278; (2004) 89 SASR 383, discussed.

WALKER v POLICE
[2014] SASC 32
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
BLUE J:

This is an appeal against an interlocutory judgment dismissing an application for summary dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it was filed out of time.[1]
[1] Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 52(1)(a)(ii).
On 21 September 2012, a complaint was filed in the Magistrates Court by the Police against the defendant Shane Walker. The complaint alleged that on 12 March 2012 the defendant exceeded the speed limit[2] and thereby breached his provisional licence[3]. When pulled over by police officers, the defendant was issued with an expiation notice (“the Expiation Notice”). The time limit for…

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 WALKER v Police

Details

AGLC: WALKER v Police [2014] SASC 32
Case: [2014] SASC 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Walker brought an appeal against the decision of a Magistrate, who dismissed the defendant's application to quash an Expiation Notice. The defendant had been issued an Expiation Notice for a traffic infringement. The defendant challenged the validity of the notice on the basis that the date for payment was incorrect, being 32 days instead of the 28 days required by section 6(1)(c) of the relevant legislation.

The court was required to determine whether the discrepancy in the date for payment was significant enough to invalidate the Expiation Notice. The court considered whether the departure from the statutory requirement was minor or inconsequential, and whether it prejudiced the purpose of the legislature in imposing the requirement. The court also needed to decide whether the complaint was lodged within the statutory time frame and whether the Magistrate's decision was correct.

The court found that the minor discrepancy in the date for payment on the Expiation Notice did not prejudice the purpose of the legislature in imposing the requirement. The court concluded that the Expiation Notice was valid, and the complaint was lodged within the statutory time frame. The Magistrate's decision to dismiss the defendant's application was correct. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

In the present case, the date for payment written onto the Expiation Notice was 32 days, rather than 28 days, from (and including) the date of the notice. This is a minor or inconsequential departure from the requirement imposed by section 6(1)(c) which would not prejudice the purpose of the legislature in imposing the requirement.Conclusion The Expiation Notice was valid. The complaint was laid within time. The Magistrate correctly dismissed the defendant’s application. I dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.