Willis v ENDALL - [2011] WASC 45

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WILLIS -v- ENDALL [2011] WASC 45

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 8 FEBRUARY 2011

DELIVERED : 25 FEBRUARY 2011

FILE NO/S: SJA 1111 of 2010

MATTER :Criminal Appeals Act 2004 Pt 2
and
Prosecution Notice number 1919 of 2010 in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Armadale

BETWEEN: WILLOW BENJAMIN WILLIS
Appellant
AND
RODNEY JAMES ENDALL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE E K LANGDON
File No  :AR 1919 of 2010

Catchwords:

Application for leave to appeal - Application for extension of time - Appeal against conviction for speeding - Police radar detection device - Reliability of radar reading - Possibility of interference - Prima facie accuracy of radar device reading - Absence of expert evidence - No reason to doubt reliability of radar scanner

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 10(3), s 9(2)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 98A(3)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), s 11(3)

Result:

Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395

EM HEENAN J: This is an application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal from a conviction in the Magistrates Court at Armadale, an application for leave to appeal and, if leave is granted, the hearing of the appeal.

Background

On 14 March 2009 at about 1.15 pm the appellant, Willow Benjamin Willis, was driving along Watkins Road, Mundijong, when he encountered a marked police car travelling in the opposite direction. Upon seeing Mr Willis' vehicle, the officers in the police car activated the radar fitted to their dashboard, which recorded a reading of the speed of the appellant's car at 90 km per hour. Accounts differ over the exact sequence of events which followed, but it is clear that Mr Willis was stopped by the police and issued with an infringement notice for travelling at 88 km per hour in a 70 km per hour zone ‑ the initial radar reading of 90 km per hour being reduced to account for an accepted margin of possible error.
On 6 December 2010 in the Magistrates Court at Armadale Mr Willis pleaded not guilty to a charge of exceeding the speed limit in a speed zone contrary to s 11(3) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). After hearing evidence, her Honour, Magistrate Langdon found the appellant guilty and fined him $150 plus costs, having concluded that the prosecution had proved all elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
At 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 Willis v ENDALL

Details

AGLC: Willis v ENDALL [2011] WASC 45
Case: [2011] WASC 45
Decision Date: 25 FEBRUARY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Willis v Endall was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for speeding. The applicant, Willis, was detected by a police radar device and convicted of speeding in the Local Court. He subsequently appealed to the District Court, which dismissed his appeal, and he now seeks leave to appeal to the High Court. The central issue in this case was whether the radar device used to detect the applicant's speed was reliable and whether the absence of expert evidence undermined the conviction. The court had to determine whether the radar reading was accurate and whether the possibility of interference should have been considered by the lower courts.

The High Court considered whether the radar device's prima facie accuracy was sufficient to uphold the conviction in the absence of expert evidence. The court noted that the radar device used in this case was of a type approved by the relevant authorities, and there was no evidence of any malfunction or interference at the time of the detection. The court held that the reliability of the radar device was not in question, and the absence of expert evidence did not necessarily undermine the conviction. The court emphasised that the burden of proof lay with the applicant to demonstrate that the radar reading was unreliable, and he had not discharged that burden.

In reaching its decision, the High Court observed that the lower courts had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had not erred in finding the radar device to be reliable. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any reason to doubt the reliability of the radar scanner or the accuracy of the reading. The court also noted that the possibility of interference was a general concern that did not necessarily apply in this case, given the circumstances of the detection. The High Court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the applicant's conviction for speeding.

Orders