White v Taylor

[1999] WASCA 104

WHITE -v- TAYLOR [1999] WASCA 104

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 104
Case No:	SJA:1055/1999	Heard:	16 JULY 1999
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	16/07/99
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	CRAIG BYRON WHITE TERRY CHARLES  TAYLOR
Catchwords:	Road Traffic Act s 54 Failing to stop after accident Whether penalty excessive Conceded appeal Fine $600 reduced to $30
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 54(1)
Case References:	Nil Mason v Strudwick (1993) 17 MVR 305 Streets v Thorpe (1985) 2 MVR 261

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : WHITE -v- TAYLOR [1999] WASCA 104 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 16 JULY 1999 DELIVERED : 16 JULY 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1055 of 1999 BETWEEN : CRAIG BYRON WHITE

Appellant

AND

TERRY CHARLES TAYLOR
Respondent

Catchwords:

Road Traffic Act s 54 - Failing to stop after accident - Whether penalty excessive - Conceded appeal - Fine $600 reduced to $30

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 54(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr M G Lundberg

(Page 2)

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Mason v Strudwick (1993) 17 MVR 305
Streets v Thorpe (1985) 2 MVR 261

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: On Armistice Day 1998 the appellant backed his car out of a car park in a bay at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. He came briefly into collision with a Holden Rodeo.

2 He then drove off. As he explained to the police later: "I only skimmed the other car and didn't think there was any damage to either car."

3 In fact, there was some minor damage to the Holden Rodeo which was repaired for less than $60.00. The damage was to a broken bumper and moulding and indicator lens. The accident had been witnessed by another person who took the appellant's vehicle registration number. In order to trace him the Holden Rodeo owner contacted the police.

4 This appears to have led the police to charge the appellant as follows:

"Being the driver of a vehicle registered number XJM.539 in the course of the use of which an accident occurred whereby property was damaged and not being disabled from doing so failed to stop immediately after the occurrence of the accident."

5 This complaint was laid under the Road Traffic Act s 54(1). The appellant pleaded guilty by way of an endorsed plea.

6 The matter came before the learned Stipendary Magistrate on 9 March 1999 and he imposed a fine of $600.00 with costs of $57.70.

7 On 9 April 1999 leave was granted to appeal on the following grounds:

"(a) The learned Magistrate erred in applying a penalty that was manifestly excessive in proportion to the nature and seriousness of the offence admitted.

(b) The learned Magistrate failed to consider the minor nature of the circumstances of the incident, or the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty in order to save the Court time and costs, in the application of the penalty.

(c) The learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration the appellant's capacity to pay any fine imposed.

(d) The learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration that this was the first and only conviction of the appellant of any offence."

(Page 4)

8 When a Magistrate deals with matters, probably in bulk, in relation to endorsed pleas of guilty, there is less need for detailed reasons as to the imposition of a particular amount by way of fine. A Magistrate will bring to bear his or her experience in relation to the penalties commonly imposed for particular types of offences. An offence under the Road Traffic Act s 54(1) can range from the most minor of infractions to an offence of serious criminality.

9 A Magistrate, despite their no doubt busy court list, must nevertheless keep some proportionality in relation to the offence and the penalty.

10 Material has been put before this Court by way of letters from the other driver and a background about the appellant's capacity to pay. It does not appear from the appeal book that such material was placed before the Magistrate. I therefore propose to consider whether the Magistrate erred in the exercise of his discretion in imposing a fine which was manifestly excessive without regard to the further information.

11 In my opinion the Magistrate has so erred. On the information before the Magistrate the following factors emerge:

* There was an early plea of guilty;

* There was less than $1,000.00 damage;

* No persons were injured;

* The explanation that the driver did not think there was damage to either car.

12 In the light of these facts, a fine of $600.00 is grossly disproportionate to the criminality. Consequently, I set that fine aside.

13 I now turn to consider the penalty. I am satisfied that some penalty should be imposed. It is important that when accidents occur, drivers should at the least leave their name and address, otherwise the innocent party will be left with the cost of repairs. For this reason I think that some fine is appropriate. In affixing the amount of fine I take into account the matters I have previously listed. I also take into the account the appellant's limited capacity to pay, the attitude of the victim to the offence, and the fact that the damage was $58.99 which has been already paid by the appellant.

(Page 5)

14 In all the circumstances I allow the appeal, set aside the fine of $600.00, in lieu impose a fine of $30.00. The order that the appellant pay the prosecution costs of $57.70 will remain.