Citation: Director of Public Prosecutions v Mark Montaz Abouali [2011] NSWSC 110
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 4 March 2011
Judge(s): Schmidt J
Background
A driver was issued a traffic infringement notice in September 2009 for failing to stop at a red traffic light, charged under rule 56(1)(a) of the Road Rules 2008. Two police officers, stationary in their vehicle at the same intersection in Surry Hills, observed the defendant drive through the intersection while the lights were red, without stopping at all.
At the close of the prosecution's case in the Local Court, the defendant's representative made a no prima facie case submission. The argument was that rule 56(1)(a) only applies where a driver stops but does so in the wrong place, and that a driver who passes straight through an intersection against a red light without stopping has committed a different offence under rule 59(1).
The Magistrate accepted that submission and dismissed the proceedings, concluding the facts did not clearly fit rule 56(1). The DPP appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law under section 56(1)(c) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Magistrate erred in law by concluding that an essential element of the rule 56(1)(a) offence was that the vehicle must have come to a stop (but stopped in the wrong place).
- Whether, as a matter of statutory construction, rule 56 and rule 59 of the Road Rules 2008 are mutually exclusive, so that only one can apply to a given set of facts.
- Whether the Magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for her determination.
Decision
Ground A and B: Misreading rule 56(1)(a) and the essential elements of the offence
Schmidt J found that the Magistrate erred in law by reading rule 56 as limited to situations where a driver had stopped but done so at the wrong location. Rule 56 imposes an obligation to stop before the stop line. Rule 59, by contrast, prohibits a driver from entering an intersection while traffic lights are red. These are two separate obligations, and a driver who passes through a red light without stopping at all may breach both simultaneously.
The court drew on interstate decisions, including from the ACT and South Australia, which confirmed that the two rules address distinct duties. The fact that a breach of rule 59 may also have occurred is no answer to an allegation of breach of rule 56. The Magistrate's conclusion that only rule 59 could apply on the evidence was therefore an error of law.
Ground C: Adequacy of reasons
Schmidt J acknowledged that while the Magistrate's reasons were brief, this ground of appeal did not need to be separately determined once the error in construing the rules was established. The failure to give detailed reasons was noted as part of the overall error, but the appeal succeeded primarily on the construction point.
Ground D: Dismissal of proceedings
Because the prosecution's evidence (that the defendant drove through a red light without stopping) was capable of establishing the elements of the rule 56(1)(a) offence, the no prima facie case application should not have been granted. The dismissal of the proceedings was set aside.
Orders Made
- The appeal is upheld.
- The order made by Hawdon LCM on 5 August 2010 dismissing the proceedings is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the Local Court to be dealt with according to law.
- The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs, as agreed or assessed.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 56 and rule 59 of the Road Rules 2008 impose distinct and separate obligations on drivers: rule 56 requires a driver to stop before a stop line at a red light, while rule 59 prohibits entering an intersection when the lights are red.
- A single course of conduct, such as driving through a red light without stopping, can simultaneously breach both rules. The availability of a charge under one rule does not preclude a charge under the other.
- Evidence that a driver passed straight through an intersection against a red light, without stopping at all, is capable of establishing a prima facie case under rule 56(1)(a). Such evidence is not limited to situations where the driver stopped but in the wrong place.
- In upholding the appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed that errors in statutory construction of the Road Rules constitute errors of law reviewable on appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.
- Interstate decisions from the ACT and South Australian Supreme Courts interpreting equivalent provisions of the Australian Road Rules were treated as relevant and persuasive authority on the construction question.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
- Road Rules 2008
Cases
- Byrne v Hulbert [2009] ACTSC 124
- Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284; (2006) 67 NSWLR 372
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Illawarra Cashmart Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 343; (2006) 67 NSWLR 402
- Jordan v Police [2006] SASC 205
- Le Poidevin v Police (SA) [2005] SASC 314
- Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
- Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Board Of NSW v Smith, Munro and Seymour [2010] NSWCA 19