LLB 101 Hart v Rankin PDF

Preview

Summary

LLB 101 Intro to Law, Hart v Rankin tutorial exercise. ...

Description

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144

1. What does the citation Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144 mean?



The case was in 1979, the people involved are Hart and Rankin. It was published in the Western Australia Reports, with the report starting on page 144.

2. Who are the parties to the proceeding? Answer this in two ways. What were their surnames? Describe them in a meaningful way in relation to the legal proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.



In this matter, Hart (the aboriginal driver of the vehicle) is the appellant, with Rankin (Police Officer) being the Respondent (regarding the case heard in the WASC Appeal.) But the first hearing held at the petty court hearings on Williams (now Magistrate), Hart was the Defendant, whilst Rankin was the Plaintiff (Prosecutor?)

3. What year was the case reported?



The case reported in 1979 (the case was concluded in 1977)

4. What does WAR stand for? Where did you find this information?



WAR stands for Western Australia Report. I found this information on Austlii.

5. What does the 144 mean?



144 means the page number of the WAR where the case report starts.

Nico D’Amico

31 st July 2018

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144

6. What court was the case heard in:



Initially it was heard in the Petty Sessions Williams (magistrates), but on appeal, it was heard in the WASC (Western Australia Supreme Court.)

7. What sort of proceeding is this?



This is a criminal proceeding, as shown by the punitive method of punishment, and indicated by the layout of the report.

8. What was the date of the hearing that has been reported?



The date of the hearing reported is the 15 th of September 1977

9. What was the date of the judgment that has been reported?



The date of judgment that has been reported is the 30 th of September 1977

10. Who was the judge that decided the case reported at [1979] WAR 144 and how senior in the court is he?



The judge that decided the case was Burt CJ, and he is the most senior member of the court as he is the Chief Justice.

11. Identify the catchwords as they appear in the report, by stating the opening and closing words.



Opening: “Criminal law and procedures” and closing “ Whether total period of imprisonment excessive.”

Nico D’Amico

31 st July 2018

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144 12. Identify the headnote that appears in the report by stating the opening and closing words.



Opening: “The Appellant was charged” and Ending: “brought in that way”

13. Who were the barristers who appeared in court and the solicitors who acted for each of the two parties?



Appellant: J.G Picton-Warlow (Barrister) Aboriginal Legal Service (Solicitor)



Respondent: G.F Scott (Barrister) State Crown Solicitor (Solicitor)

14. Do any of the following appear in this report? a) Case Lists.



Yes, they appear on pages 144-145.

b) History of Litigation.



No, it does not.

c) Argument of Counsel.



No, it does not.

15. What does Cur adv vult mean?



Cur adv vult means the court wants to consider the relevant law in relation to the case, until giving they’re judgement.

Nico D’Amico

31 st July 2018

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144 16. Identify where does the text of the actual reasons for judgement of the courts starts and ends by stating the opening and closing words of the judge.



The reasons for judgment start with the words “Burt CJ: By this one order nisi to review the appellant”, and the concluded with the words “To this extent the appeals are allowed and there will be orders accordingly”.

17. Brief description of material facts. 18. The Defendant/Appellant, an aboriginal man, was charged on three occasions with driving a motor vehicle without a licence contrary to road traffic act (19741978) within 24 hours. On the final occasion, he was steering and braking the car whilst being towed. This has brought up the question of whether whilst being towed, a car is still defined as a motor vehicle. As the defendant has 9 prior driving offences in his history, for each of the three offences, the defendant received 12-month sentences on each charge, to be served cumulatively, with a fixed minimum term of 6 months. It is therefore being appealed on two grounds. The first regarding the definition of a motor vehicle whilst it is being towed, and secondly, if the sentence is manifestly excessive. 19. What were the three main issue’s in the case?

i.

Whether a motor vehicle is still defined a motor vehicle whilst being towed.

ii.

Whether a person who is operating a car while being towed is considered driving.

iii.

Whether the total period of imprisonment was manifestly excessive, and if the previous magistrate erred in making the sentence cumulative and not concurrent.

Nico D’Amico

31 st July 2018

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144

20. In respect of the three major issues, what did the court decide and what were the courts reasons? 1) In respect of the first issue, being if a car is still defined as a motor vehicle whilst being towed, Burt CJ decided it was still a motor vehicle, his reasoning being that “the definition is describing and defining a thing in terms of its functional design, and not with reference to the way it is performing at any particular time.” As such he held that at the time of the car being towed, it was still regarded as a motor vehicle as per the Road Traffic Act. 2) In respect of the second issue, whether a person operating a car whilst being towed can be reasoned to be driving, Burt CJ reasoned that the Act defines the noun “driver” as “any person driving, or in control of, a vehicle or animal.” From this he reasoned that to be in control of a motor vehicle, is to drive it 3) And finally, the issue of whether the period of imprisonment was excessive and the issue of if the sentence of 3 years (1 year for each count, with 18 months non-parole period.) should have been concurrent and not cumulative. Burt CJ reasoned that 3 years imprisonment was appropriate, given the appellant had 9 previous occurrences of driving a motor vehicle without a license. Instead, it was decided that the sentences should be served concurrently, but not reduced. The judge reduced the non-parole period to 6 months, whilst keeping the sentence of one year on each charge and changing it to be served concurrently. In this way, the appeal against the convictions were dismissed, but the appeals against the sentence were successful.

Nico D’Amico

31 st July 2018

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144

21. What was the formal order of the court?

The order of the court was as follows. a. The appeals against conviction are dismissed. b. The terms of imprisonment will be served concurrently, not cumulatively. c. The fixed non-parole period is changed from 18 months to 6 months.

Nisi is a term which defined means to take order/effect when certain specified dates or conditions made by the court are met.

22. What does the formal order mean in plain language in relation to the result of the appeal? A formal order is the proclamation of the decisions made by the judge. It is the finalised verdict of all issues brought before the court. 23. What was the name of the barrister or solicitor that reported on the decision? His name is Rodney Greaves.

Nico D’Amico

31 st July 2018...