Wintle v Dean - [2012] WASC 165

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WINTLE -v- DEAN [2012] WASC 165

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 30 APRIL 2012

DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1127 of 2011

BETWEEN: JOSHUA NOEL WINTLE
Appellant
AND
PAUL ANTHONY DEAN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE T McINTYRE
File No  :MH 3568 of 2011, MH 3569 of 2011, MH 3570 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Dangerous driving contrary to s 61 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Plea of guilty - 'Serious' instance of dangerous driving, involving property damage - Fine imposed by magistrate exceeded maximum monetary penalty for first dangerous driving offence - Licence suspension pursuant to s 105 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) appropriate

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14, s 41
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 61
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 105

Result:

Appeal allowed
The sentence imposed on the appellant by Magistrate McIntyre on 7 November 2011 with respect to conviction for dangerous driving contrary to s 61 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) be set aside
The appellant pay a fine of $600
The appellant's motor vehicle driver's licence be suspended for a period commencing 7 November 2011 and ending 30 April 2012

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D A Fort
Respondent: Ms M C Dorn

Solicitors:

Appellant: Fort Legal
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Nil

MARTIN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 30 April 2012 and has been edited from the transcript.)

This is an appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant for dangerous driving contrary to s 61 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (Road Traffic Act). I take the circumstances which gave rise to the offence, to which the appellant pleaded guilty, from the transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate on 7 November 2011 and, in particular, the address of the prosecutor, who outlined the facts to the magistrate and which were not disputed by the appellant.
At 5.30 pm on 26 June 2011, the appellant drove his Holden Commodore west on Rockford Street in Mandurah near the junction of Peel Street. He lost control with the road surface while he was travelling down Rockford Street, leaving burn‑out tyre marks of about 20 metres in length.
As a result of the loss of control, the vehicle mounted the front lawn of Unit 1, 10 Rockford Street, Mandurah narrowly missing a telegraph pole and then colliding with a 1 metre high garden bed retaining wall, causing bricks to crack. At the time of the incident, the road conditions were damp as it had been raining most of the day. Having caused damage to the retaining wall, the accused did not cause his vehicle to stop. He did not wait long enough so that he could provide his name and address to the owner of…

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 Wintle v Dean

Details

AGLC: Wintle v Dean [2012] WASC 165
Case: [2012] WASC 165
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wintle v Dean, the appellant, Wintle, appealed against the sentence imposed by a magistrate for dangerous driving contrary to section 61 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). Wintle had pleaded guilty to the charge, which was characterised as a 'serious' instance of dangerous driving involving property damage. The court was tasked with determining whether the fine imposed by the magistrate exceeded the maximum monetary penalty for a first dangerous driving offence and whether a licence suspension pursuant to section 105 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) was appropriate.

The court identified the principal legal issue as whether the fine imposed on Wintle was beyond the statutory limit for a first dangerous driving offence and, if so, whether an alternative penalty, such as a licence suspension, was warranted. Given that the maximum penalty for a first dangerous driving offence includes a fine not exceeding $2,000, the court had to examine whether the fine imposed was within the prescribed limits. Additionally, the court considered whether the imposition of a licence suspension would be an appropriate alternative penalty in the circumstances.

Upon reviewing the matter, the court concluded that the fine imposed exceeded the statutory maximum for a first dangerous driving offence. Consequently, the court deemed the fine invalid to the extent it surpassed the legal limit. The court further determined that a licence suspension under section 105 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) was an appropriate alternative penalty, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need to ensure that Wintle's driving privileges were appropriately restricted as a deterrent and for public safety.

The final orders of the court were to invalidate the portion of the fine that exceeded the statutory maximum and to impose a licence suspension in lieu of the excessive fine. The court's decision aimed to ensure that the penalty imposed was within the legal bounds while maintaining a deterrent effect and addressing the seriousness of the dangerous driving offence.

Orders