Watson v Cassidy - [2011] NTSC 80

Watson v Cassidy [2011] NTSC 80
PARTIES: WATSON, Jake
v

CASSIDY, Craig

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   JA - AS36 of 2011 (21112520)
DELIVERED:   5 October 2011
HEARING DATES:   29 September 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   MILDREN J
APPEAL FROM:   MR G CAVENAGH SM
CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:   R.D. Anderson
Respondent:   J Tierney
Solicitors:
Appellant:   NT Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:   Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Number of pages:   7

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Watson v Cassidy [2011] NTSC 80
No. JA - AS36 of 2011 (21112520)
BETWEEN:

JAKE WATSON

Appellant

AND:

CRAIG CASSIDY

Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 5 October 2011)
MILDREN J:

At 1.10am on 3 March 2011, the appellant was driving a New South Wales registered Toyota Hilux in Alice Springs. As he approached a sweeping turn on Milner Road, the appellant lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle left the road surface and mounted the kerb. It then slid sidewards for approximately 20 metres before colliding with a tree and number of bins. The vehicle eventually came to a stop on the footpath outside house 22 Milner Road. The appellant ran away from the scene of the crash.
Over the course of the next few weeks police made enquiries interstate in order to establish the owner of the vehicle. The appellant did not report the accident until he attended the Alice Springs police station on 9 April 2011. The appellant was asked why he failed to report the accident. His response was “I can’t remember”. When asked why he left the accident scene, he said “I think I hit my head. I can’t remember”.
There were no passengers in the vehicle. The appellant was not injured in the accident.
The appellant pleaded guilty and admitted the above facts. On his behalf his counsel told the learned Magistrate that the appellant instructed that he had been asleep after he had finished work at 9pm. He received a call from a room-mate at 12.48am asking the appellant to pick him up. He was unable to remember anything until the next morning when he woke up.
It was put that the appellant went to the police station after a few days and was told that the duty officer was on leave but would contact the appellant after he came back. No further contact having been made the appellant two weeks later went back to enquire further and was told the police officer was still on leave. The matter was eventually reported when the appellant attended the Alice Springs police station himself on 9 April.
The offences to which the appellant pleaded guilty were both regulatory offences. The first offence was leaving the scene of an accident before allowing sufficient time for enquiries to be made contrary to Regulation 19 (1) (a) of the Traffic Regulations. The second offence was failing to…

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 Watson v Cassidy

Details

AGLC: Watson v Cassidy [2011] NTSC 80
Case: [2011] NTSC 80
Decision Date: 05/10/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Watson v Cassidy, the appellant, Watson, appealed against a conviction for failing to stop and report a road accident to the police. The incident involved Watson’s car colliding with bins, causing damage, and no other vehicles were involved. Watson did not comply with the regulation requiring him to stop and report the accident, instead delaying his report for several days. The court was tasked with determining whether the magistrate erred in his discretion when imposing the conviction and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the magistrate’s exercise of discretion in imposing a conviction and sentencing Watson. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the magistrate was justified in not recording a conviction for the offence of failing to stop and allow necessary inquiries to be made, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The court also needed to consider whether the magistrate was obliged to exercise his discretion in a particular way regarding the conviction for failing to report the matter to the police.

The court’s reasoning focused on the magistrate’s discretion and the evidence presented. The court acknowledged that if the magistrate had been satisfied that Watson’s failure to stop was due to a head injury, he might have chosen not to record a conviction. However, the court found that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this was the case. Furthermore, the court held that the magistrate was not obliged to exercise his discretion in a specific manner regarding the failure to report the incident to the police. Ultimately, the court concluded that the magistrate did not err in his discretion and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

In light of these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the magistrate’s decision, finding that the conviction and sentence were appropriate given the circumstances and the evidence presented.

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 this case there was no other vehicle involved, although there presumably was some damage to other property (the bins), not to mention to the car which the appellant was driving. I think the main problem for the appellant in this case was that not only did he not comply with that regulation, he did not report the matter to the police as soon as was reasonably practicable and in any event within twenty four hours. Although some excuse was give to the learned Magistrate as to why it took him so long to report the matter, this really did not cover the first three or four days or so after the accident when even on his counsel’s explanation, he made his first attempt to contact police.Conclusions I think the learned Magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, might have declined to have recorded a conviction for the offence of failing to stop for a sufficient time to allow necessary enquiries to be made if he had been satisfied that at that stage the reason why the appellant left the scene was due to a head injury, but I do not think it has been demonstrated that he erred in not doing so on the material that was put before him. I certainly do not think he was obliged not to record a conviction in the exercise of his discretion in relation to the offence of failing to report the matter to the police. In the circumstances I do not think it can be said that the sentence actually imposed was manifestly excessive. For these reasons, after hearing submissions from counsel for the appellant I dismissed the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.