Jesse v Roads and Maritime Services NSW [2020] NSWDC 512

Jesse v Roads and Maritime Services NSW [2020] NSWDC 512

The prosecution had particularised its case as concerning the excavator and buckets, and it would be unfair to rely on the jerry can, conduit and loading ramps introduced at the Local Court hearing. On the evidence, the excavator was braked, the bucket against the headboard was prevented from moving, and the smaller buckets and ripper were contained within the larger braked excavator bucket. Any limited movement would not adversely affect stability or weight distribution and the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the load failed to comply with s111(1)(b) of the Heavy Vehicle National Law. Costs were refused because the statutory conditions for an award against the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal Against Local Court Conviction for Drive Heavy Vehicle Not Comply Loading Requirements Under Heavy Vehicle National Law (nsw) S 111(1)(b) / District Court Determination After Remittal From the Court of Criminal Appeal on a Stated Case
Outcome
Appeal allowed; charge dismissed; costs application refused; Local Court professional costs order quashed.
Legal Topics
['heavy Vehicle Loading Requirements' 'load Restraint' 'contained Load' 'particulars' 'procedural Fairness for Unrepresented Accused' 'costs Against Public Prosecutor']
['criminal Law' 'road Transport and Heavy Vehicle Regulation' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['heavy Vehicle Loading Requirements' 'load Restraint' 'contained Load' 'particulars' 'procedural Fairness for Unrepresented Accused' 'costs Against Public Prosecutor']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conviction Appeal Against Local Court Conviction for Drive Heavy Vehicle Not Comply Loading Requirements Under Heavy Vehicle National Law (nsw) S 111(1)(b) / District Court Determination After Remittal From the Court of Criminal Appeal on a Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant had to demonstrate error in the Local Court as a precondition to the conviction appeal.' 'Whether the prosecution could rely on the jerry can, loading ramps and conduit when those items had not been particularised in the penalty notice or court attendance notice.' 'Whether the buckets and ripper were contained and restrained within the meaning of the Load Restraint Guide and the Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW).' 'Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant breached s111(1)(b) of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.' 'Whether costs should be awarded to the appellant under ss 28 and 70 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution had particularised its case as concerning the excavator and buckets, and it would be unfair to rely on the jerry can, conduit and loading ramps introduced at the Local Court hearing. On the evidence, the excavator was braked, the bucket against the headboard was prevented from moving, and the smaller buckets and ripper were contained within the larger braked excavator bucket. Any limited movement would not adversely affect stability or weight distribution and the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the load failed to comply with s111(1)(b) of the Heavy Vehicle National Law. Costs were refused because the statutory conditions for an award against the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; charge dismissed; costs application refused; Local Court professional costs order quashed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Charge dismissed.' 'Costs application refused.' 'The order of the Local Court ordering professional costs in the sum of $1000.00 is quashed.']