Appellant Opposes Magistrate's Decision In Convicting Him of Driving Without Due Care
SCYLLA v POLICE [2022] SASC 42 (6 May 2022)
The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of the offence of driving without due care. The appellant contends that the Magistrate erred in placing disproportionate weight to witness evidence. The Court, in resolving this dispute, assessed the Magistrate's judgment.
Facts:
The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of the offence of driving without due care contrary to s 45(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The charge arose out of an incident on 12 July 2020 when the appellant driving his Mitsubishi Magna on Bondleigh Road, Rockleigh, lost control of his vehicle and drove through a fence and into a farming property. It was the appellant’s evidence that it was not his vehicle that was involved in the accident. The appellant’s grounds of appeal are the following: the Magistrate had placed disproportionate weight on the evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution; the Magistrate failed to place sufficient weight on the appellant’s argument that his car would have suffered more damage had it been involved in the collision; and, the police investigation was inadequate and that the Magistrate had placed insufficient weight on that aspect of the evidence.
It was the prosecution case that the appellant was driving his Mitsubishi Magna on Bondleigh Road, Rockleigh when he lost control of his car and drove through a fence and into a paddock of a farming property owned by Mr Vincent Critchley. The prosecution alleged that the appellant then drove out of the paddock, back onto Bondleigh Road, then onto Range Road where he initially pulled over and parked on the left side of that road for a short period of time (‘Stop 1’), before continuing on to the end of Range Road where he again parked his vehicle (‘Stop 2’). On 5 October 2021, the Magistrate found the appellant guilty of one count of driving without due care. In doing so the Magistrate rejected the appellant’s account. The Magistrate rejected the appellant’s evidence that he had not been involved in the collision. He found that “the appellant’s evidence is marked with significant anomalies and frankly does not make logical sense”.
Issue:
Whether or not the appeal should be granted.
Applicable law:
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45(1) - provides that a person must not drive a vehicle without due care or attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
Penney v R [1998] HCA 51; (1998) 155 ALR 605 - the High Court considered the impact of an inadequate police investigation on a successful prosecution.
R v Becirovic [2017] SASCFC 156 - found that the principles developed under this ambit in the context of a trial by jury are equally applicable to a trial by judge alone.
R v Schueard (1972) 4 SASR 36 - provides that to establish that a verdict is unreasonable, or that it cannot be supported by the evidence, it is not enough for the appellant to show that the evidence is open to criticism.
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 - provides that this Court must ask whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the Magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt.
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559 - provides that it is not sufficient to show that there was material which might have been taken by the Magistrate to preclude satisfaction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
In his reasons for the verdict, the Magistrate canvassed in some detail all of the evidence led at trial. In considering the evidence of each of the witnesses called by the prosecution, the Magistrate considered those matters that had been raised by the appellant. In particular, in relation to Ms Schofer, the Magistrate considered the appellant’s argument that she would not have been in a position to make the observations that she said that she did. The Magistrate rejected that submission and found that Ms Schofer had the opportunity to witness not only the vehicle entering and leaving the paddock but also as it drove closer to her position while travelling north.
Central to the appellant’s argument was his submission that the appearance of his vehicle at a time shortly after the collision was objective support for his case. The difficulty with that submission is that there was evidence that his vehicle was damaged. There was no dispute that at the time the police came across the appellant and his vehicle the bonnet was open because it was overheating and it was leaking oil.
The police failed to seize the items and have an independent forensic examination conducted of those vehicle parts as compared with the appellant’s vehicle. What is important is that the Magistrate was aware that those items had been present at the scene and no comparison had been undertaken. The failure of the police to embark on such an exercise did not cause the Magistrate to hold any doubt in relation to the appellant’s guilt in relation to this offence.
Conclusion:
None of the grounds of appeal is made out. The appeal is dismissed.
