WAUGH -v- HODGSON [2015] WASC 354
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 354 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1043/2015 | 16 SEPTEMBER 2015 | |
| Coram: | BEECH J | 25/09/15 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused on all grounds Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE M RIDLEY
File No : PE 95981 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Road traffic - Speeding - Whether reg 11(3) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) valid - Whether prosecution must prove speed caused risk to safety
Legislation:
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 11
Result:
Leave to appeal refused on all grounds
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr C M Beetham
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27
Carr v The State of Western Australia [2007] HCA 47; (2007) 232 CLR 138
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 350 CLR 503
K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court [2009] HCA 4; (2009) 237 CLR 501
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10; (2011) 242 CLR 573
McEldowney v Ford [1971] AC 632
Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd [1997]…
Continue reading Waugh v Hodgson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Waugh v Hodgson [2015] WASC 354
- Case
- [2015] WASC 354
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Waugh was charged with speeding under the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), a statute that includes a provision that deems a driver to be exceeding the speed limit if they are travelling at a speed that is not safe at the time, regardless of whether the speed limit is being exceeded. Waugh was prosecuted for speeding despite not exceeding the speed limit, and the defence argued that the relevant regulation was invalid because it required the prosecution to prove that the driver was travelling at a speed that was not safe at the time, rather than proving that the driver was exceeding the speed limit. The court of appeal was asked to determine whether the relevant regulation was valid, and whether the prosecution had to prove that the speed caused a risk to safety.
The court held that the relevant regulation was valid and did not infringe upon the principle of legality, as it was not unforeseeable that a driver might travel at a speed that was not safe at the time, even if they were not exceeding the speed limit. The court also held that the prosecution did not need to prove that the speed caused a risk to safety, but rather that the driver was travelling at a speed that was not safe at the time, which was a lower threshold to prove. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the driver was travelling at a speed that was not safe at the time, as the prosecution had proved that the driver was travelling at 72 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to a higher court was refused. The conviction and penalty imposed on the appellant were upheld, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
The court held that the relevant regulation was valid and did not infringe upon the principle of legality, as it was not unforeseeable that a driver might travel at a speed that was not safe at the time, even if they were not exceeding the speed limit. The court also held that the prosecution did not need to prove that the speed caused a risk to safety, but rather that the driver was travelling at a speed that was not safe at the time, which was a lower threshold to prove. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the driver was travelling at a speed that was not safe at the time, as the prosecution had proved that the driver was travelling at 72 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to a higher court was refused. The conviction and penalty imposed on the appellant were upheld, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused on all grounds
Appeal dismissed
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.