Event and Time
Event Description
- On 13 June 2019, Matthew Fox was driving a Porsche Cayenne on the Princes Freeway in Nar Nar Goon when pulled over for allegedly exceeding the speed limit at 135 kph.
- Fox filed a Notice of Objection, requesting the case be heard in the Magistrates’ Court.
- On 6 August 2019, police issued a charge for contravening r 20(2) of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic).
- The police charge alleged that Fox drove at a speed exceeding the limit by 35 kph (detected speed of 137 kph), but the charge sheet incorrectly mentioned "Interchange Road," which does not exist in Nar Nar Goon.
Application and Claims
- Fox argued the charge was defective for failing to specify:
- The time of the offence. - The kind of vehicle. - The basis for the speed limit of 100 kph. - The correct location of the offence.
- The Magistrate found defects regarding the time and place of the offence but dismissed the charge.
Judicial Decisions
- The Appellant sought a review of the order under s 272 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and Order 56 of the Supreme Court rules, arguing that the Magistrate erred.
- The court would determine if the dismissal was a final order warranting further judicial review.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Respondent's Claims:
- The charge failed to specify essential particulars, leading to its alleged invalidity. - Asserted the necessity of detailing the time, vehicle type, speed limit basis, and correct place as per the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
- Appellant's Arguments:
- The Magistrate's decision to dismiss the charge should be quashed due to errors in findings regarding particulars. - Emphasized that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements was met, referencing similar case law (e.g., Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Glenister).