Read the decision in Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144 to be found on the following pages of this Study Guide.  (Look up any words or phrases you do not understand.)
Now answer the following questions:

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

In this case, Hart, an Aboriginal driver, represents the respondent while Rankin is the case’s prosecutor because the name of Hart comes first on the list (Morris & Cook, 2013). On the appeal, Hart represents the appellant while Rankin is the responded. [1979] represents the year when Rankin reported the case. In this case, WAR is an ellipsis for Warfare Australian Reports. On the other hand, 144 denote the page number or reference of the statement from whence the trial commences.

2. Where did you find this information:

The information is available at the level-headed dictionary

3. What court was the case heard in: At first instance? On appeal?

At first, the case was attended to in the Court of Petty Sessions at Williams: a magistrate court. On appealing, the trial takes place in Supreme Court of Western Australia

4. What sort of proceeding is this – civil or criminal?

The proceeding is a criminal one because it involves a period of imprisonment.

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

September 15th, 1977 is the date of the hearing according to the reports.

6. What was the time of the judgment that has been reported?

The date of the judgment according to the report is September 30th, 1977

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

Francis Burt was the judge that decided the [1979] WAR 144 case. Burt was the Chief Justice of Western Australia and served in this capacity from the year 1977 to the year 1988 (P. W, 2017). He was the then topmost ranking judicial officer of the court during that time.

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

The opening words start with the “Law and Procedure” to whether or not there will be “Imprisonment Excessive.”

9. Identify the headnote that appears in the report by stating the opening and closing words

The Appellant to the appeal brought that way Jack Stanyon.

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

Aboriginal Legal was the Appellant’s solicitor while the State Crown Solicitor was the Respondent’s solicitor. On the other hand, G F Scott and JG Picton-Warlow were the barristers (Morris & Cook, 2013).

11. Do any of the following appear in this report?

• Case Lists: yes. It is on page 144 to 145.
• History of Litigation: No. The Litigation History does not appear anywhere.
• Argument of Counsel: this does not.

12. What does Cur adv vult mean?

The phrases mean that the courtyard desires to consider the case until it gives its verdict. Usually, the court would revisit several laws relating to the case, for instance, the Road Traffic Act (P. W, 2017). It would then have to review the emerging facts before they issue their judgment.

14. Identify where does the text of the actual reasons for judgment of the Court starts and ends by stating the opening and closing words of the decision.

The text of the actual reasons for judgment of the court starts at “Francis Burt Chief Justice” then ends “there would be orders accordingly.”

15. What would your brief statement of the material facts (in your own words) contain?

A person with nine counts of conviction for driving without a license appears before a court of law for yet driving for three consecutive times within a short period without a valid license (P. W, 2017). During the third account, the person sitting in the drivers’ seat brakes and steers a car when towing. He pleads guilty to violating the Road Traffic Act, and the court convicts him to a cumulative maximum of three years in prison with a surety of six months.

16. What were the three significant issues in the case?

The cases had three principal aspects which were: First, whether the Road Traffic Act defines the motor vehicle that is being towed as a motor vehicle. Second, whether the law considers a person in the drivers’ seat in a car that is being dragged as a driver and the actual definition of driving a vehicle. Third, whether the cumulative imprisonment period was too extended or excessive and whether it has to be served concurrently (Payne, Oliver & Marion, 2016).

In respect of each of the significant issues what made the court decision and what were the court’s reasons for determining each as it did?

According to the First count which is as to whether the Road Traffic Act defines the motor vehicle that is being towed as a motor vehicle, the adjudicator gave the verdict after reviewing what the Road Traffic Act’s definition of a motor vehicle. He compared the motor vehicle to a trailer because the appellant argued that the car was not “self-propelled.” As thus, the Judge focused on the functional design and decided that the vehicle was indeed ‘a motor vehicle.’ He said, “Describing and defining a thing regarding its functional design and not concerning the way it is performing at a particular time (Payne, Oliver & Marion, 2016).”

In the second count, the Judge defined the term driver as “any person in control of a vehicle (Payne, Oliver & Marion, 2016).” Since the appellant was braking and steering the vehicle, the Judge considered that even though the truck was being towed, the appellant was in its control, hence, driving the car.

In the third account, the judge decided to give a concurrent sentence instead of a cumulative one because it was a single trip. As a result, the judge adjusted the penalty to a maximum of one year for each count with at least three years in the prison.

17. What was the formal order of the court?

The court’s formal order is partly ordered absolute. Nisi is Latin word for ‘unless.’ Thus, the order nisi reviews appellants’ petitions that are conditional and the court is yet to ascertain unless stated otherwise.

What does the formal order mean in plain language about the result of the appeal?

The term formal order refers to the decision or verdict that the judge issue. It can also imply the court ruling or order.

18. What was the name of the barrister or solicitor who reported the decision?

Rodney Greaves is the barrister that reported the verdict.

 

References

Morris, G., & Cook, C. (2013). Laying down the law (4th ed.). Sydney: Butterworths.

PWC. (2017). Western Australian reports. Consolidated index and tables, 1898-1988 (5th ed.). Sydney: Butterworths.

Payne, B., Oliver, W., & Marion, N. (2016). Introduction to criminal justice. Los Angeles: SAGE.