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…

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 White v Taylor

Details

AGLC: White v Taylor [1999] WASCA 104
Case: [1999] WASCA 104
Decision Date: 16 JULY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of White v Taylor involved a dispute over the imposition of a penalty under the Road Traffic Act. The respondent, Taylor, was found to have failed to stop after an accident. The fine imposed by the lower court was $600. The appellant, White, argued that the penalty was excessive and appealed the decision. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the penalty imposed on Taylor was excessive. The appellant argued that the fine was disproportionate to the offence, considering the minor nature of the accident and the absence of any injuries. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the penalty was appropriate and in line with the statutory provisions.

The court found that the fine imposed was indeed excessive. It took into account the minor nature of the accident and the absence of any injuries. The court considered the statutory purpose of the penalty, which is to deter such conduct rather than to punish the offender excessively. The court also noted that the respondent had conceded the appeal, indicating that the penalty was indeed too harsh. Consequently, the court reduced the fine to $30, which it deemed more commensurate with the nature of the offence. The appeal was allowed, and the fine was reduced as ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.