Scribd
Upload
480 views

Hart V Rankin Analysis

The appellant, an Aboriginal man with nine previous convictions for driving without a license, appealed his conviction and sentencing for three counts of driving without a license over a 14-hour period. The Supreme Court of Western Australia upheld the convictions, finding that steering a towed vehicle constituted driving, but partially allowed the appeal by ordering the 12-month sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 12 months with a 6-month non-parole period.

Uploaded by

zhangruquan0827
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
480 views

Hart V Rankin Analysis

The appellant, an Aboriginal man with nine previous convictions for driving without a license, appealed his conviction and sentencing for three counts of driving without a license over a 14-hour period. The Supreme Court of Western Australia upheld the convictions, finding that steering a towed vehicle constituted driving, but partially allowed the appeal by ordering the 12-month sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 12 months with a 6-month non-parole period.

Uploaded by

zhangruquan0827
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Foundations of Law (Juris Doctor) – Case analysis exercise

Notes on Hart v Rankin

(a) Name and citation

Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144.

(b) Court

Supreme Court of Western Australia; single judge (Burt CJ).

(c) Material facts

The appellant did not hold a driver’s licence. In a 14-hour period, he made three journeys in his
car. On the last journey, he sat in the driver’s seat and steered whilst under tow. The appellant
is Aboriginal and has nine previous convictions for driving without a licence.

(d) Procedural history

The appellant was charged with three complaints of driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst not
being the holder of a driver’s licence contrary to s. 49(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974-1978. He
was convicted of each charge upon his plea of guilty. The justices sentenced him to 12 months’
imprisonment (with a minimum term of six months’ imprisonment) in respect of each charge
and ordered that the sentences be served cumulatively. The appellant appealed to the Supreme
Court of Western Australia. Burt CJ heard the appeal on 15 September 1977 and delivered his
judgment on 30 September 1977.

(e) Grounds for appeal

Against conviction
(1) The justices ought not to have accepted his plea of guilty because they ‘did not satisfy
themselves that he was capable of understanding the nature of the charge’ as required
by s. 49 of the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972;
(2) The car was not a motor vehicle as defined in the Road Traffic Act; and,
(3) The appellant was not driving the car at that time.

Against sentence
(4) 12 months’ imprisonment was excessive in each case.
(5) The periods of imprisonment should not have been made cumulative.

(f) Summary of Court’s analysis

Against conviction
(1) Legal principle clear.
(2) Legal principle clear.
(3) Although the verb ‘to drive’ is not defined by the Road Traffic Act, Burt CJ derives its
meaning from the definition of’ ‘driver’. According to the Road Traffic Act, a ‘driver’ is
‘[a]ny person driving, or in control of, a vehicle or animal’. To be in control of a vehicle
is, says Burt CJ, to drive it. His Honour distinguishes the contrary authority of Wallace
v Major [1946] 2 All ER 87 because it was decided under British legislation and
regulations.

Against sentence
Before considering the two grounds of appeal, Burt CJ examines s 37(3) of the
Offenders Probation and Parole Act to determine the effect of the three sentences.
Contrary to the assumptions of both sides, His Honour says that the appellant was not
sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 months. Instead, the effect of the sentences
was that the appellant was sentenced to three years with a minimum of six months
before being eligible for parole.

1
(g) Principles of law to be applied

Against conviction
(1) Under s. 49 of the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972, a plea of guilty of an
Aboriginal person should not be admitted ‘where the court is satisfied upon examination
of the accused person that he is a person of Aboriginal descent who from want of
comprehension of the nature of the circumstances alleged, or of the proceedings, is or
was not capable of understanding that plea of guilty’.
(2) According to the Road Traffic Act, a ‘motor vehicle’ is ‘[a] self-propelled vehicle that is
not operated on rail; and the expression includes a trailer, a semi-trailer or caravan
while attached to the motor vehicle’.
(3) A person drives a motor vehicle if he or she is in control of it.

Against sentence
(4) The maximum sentence for driving a car without a licence is 12 months and previous
convictions are an aggravating factor when sentencing.
(5) Terms of imprisonment for offences that take place within a relatively short period of
time ought to be served concurrently, not cumulatively.

(h) Application of law to facts

Against conviction
(1) There was no suggestion that the court regarded the appellant as unable to
comprehend a plea of guilty.
(2) The car was a ‘motor vehicle’ whilst being towed because the definition in the Road
Traffic Act describes the function of such a thing and does not refer to the way that it
performs at a particular time.
(3) Since the appellant was required to steer and control the speed of the towed vehicle,
he was in control of it and thus drove it. Burt CJ distinguishes the cases of Caughey v
Spacek [1968] VR 600 and McGrath v Cooper [1976] VR 535, which reached the
opposite conclusion when applying different legislation. With reference to the case of
Tyler v Whatmore [1976] RTR 83, Burt CJ describes the issue of whether the appellant
was in control as a ‘simple question of fact’ and a matter of ‘robust common sense’.

Against sentence
(4) Given the appellant’s nine previous convictions for driving a car without a licence, 12
months’ imprisonment in each case is not excessive.
(5) The terms of the imprisonment should be served concurrently due to the fact that the
appellant’s three journeys took place within a day.

(i) Decision
Burt CJ dismisses the appeal against conviction but allows the appeal against sentence in part.

(j) Orders
The appellant should be imprisoned for 12 months’ in respect of each offence and should serve
these sentences concurrently with a total non-parole period of six months.

(k) Social or cultural context


Does the appellant’s Aboriginality have an impact on the outcome of the case?

You might also like