West v Creasey - [2000] VSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

PRACTICE COURT Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 7147 of 1999

TERRENCE NOEL WEST	Plaintiff
v.
NICHOLAS DAVID CREASEY AND ANOTHER	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 JANUARY 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	WEST v. CREASEY & ANOR.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 5

---

CATCHWORDS: Review of decision of County Court on appeal from Magistrates' Court – No error of law by trial Judge – no denial of natural justice – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. S. Gillespie-Jones	Law Partners
For the First Named Defendant	Mrs. C. Quin	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is the return of an originating motion filed in the court by the plaintiff Terrence Noel West whereby the plaintiff seeks the following relief or remedy:

"1.A declaration that the part of the order of the second defendant at the County Court at Melbourne on the 13th September 1999 wherein the plaintiff was convicted of each offence and was sentenced to pay the same aggregate fine of $800 and $53 statutory costs and suspended from driving on count 1 for 2 months; suspended from driving on count 2 for 9 months; and suspended from driving on count 3 for four months; is invalid.
2.A declaration that the part of the order of the second defendant of the County Court at Melbourne on the 13th September 1999 wherein the plaintiff was denied leave to abandon the appeal was invalid.
3.Relief by an order in the nature of certiorari to quash that part of the order referred to in paragraph 1 herein.
4.Alternatively to paragraph 3 herein relief in the nature of certiorari to quash that part of the order referred to in paragraph 2 herein.

5. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court thinks fit."

The first defendant to the proceeding is a police officer who was the informant in respect of three charges brought against the plaintiff in respect of a road traffic accident in which he had been involved on 13 May 1998. The charges were failing to give way, failing to stop after an accident, and failing to exchange names and addresses after an accident. The second-named defendant is a Judge of the County Court of Victoria.

The three charges came before the Magistrates' Court at Ringwood on 29 June 1999. The plaintiff did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel who pleaded guilty to the charges on his behalf.

The magistrate proceeded to record a conviction in respect of each charge. The plaintiff was fined the sum of $800 in respect of the charge of failing to give way and his licence to drive a motor vehicle was suspended for two months. In respect of the other two charges, the plaintiff's licence was suspended for a period of four months on each charge, making a total effective suspension of four months.

On 1 July 1999…

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 West v Creasey

Details

AGLC: West v Creasey [2000] VSC 5
Case: [2000] VSC 5
Decision Date: 18 January 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

West and Creasey were the parties involved in the case heard by the court. The nature of the dispute was a review of a decision made by the County Court, which was an appeal from a decision made by the Magistrates' Court. The court was required to determine whether there was any error of law by the trial judge and whether there was any denial of natural justice.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the trial judge made any errors in law and whether there was any denial of natural justice. The court had to carefully consider the evidence presented in the case and determine whether the trial judge's decision was correct or not. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge followed the correct legal procedures and whether there was any unfairness in the trial process.

The court found that there was no error of law by the trial judge and that there was no denial of natural justice. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's decision and found that everything was done correctly. The court also found that the trial judge followed the correct legal procedures and that there was no unfairness in the trial process. The court was satisfied that the trial judge's decision was correct and that there was no need for any further review.

As a result of the court's decision, the application was dismissed. The court found that there was no error of law by the trial judge and that there was no denial of natural justice. The court was satisfied that the trial judge's decision was correct and that there was no need for any further review. The application was dismissed, and the decision of the County Court was upheld.

Orders