9 Sept 1985
Because the appellant was charged under s46(1)(a) alleging he caused the discharge, the prosecution was required to prove causation beyond reasonable doubt; particulars as to vessel ownership were surplusage and section 36's extended meaning did not apply to s46 in Part VI, therefore absence of proof that he caused the discharge required quashing the conviction.
20 Sept 1980
Appeals allowed because the particulars were defective in alleging inability rather than failure to give a satisfactory account and there was no evidence or judicial finding on the essential element of failing to give a satisfactory account/explanation, leading the magistrate to proceed as if the offence was loitering simpliciter, making the convictions unsafe.
23 Mar 1970
Because the charge merely alleged 'using' the vehicle and no facts or admissions were placed before the magistrate establishing that the appellant was the driver, the magistrate had no lawful basis under Section 23 to order disqualification; therefore the disqualification orders were set aside.