Re Joseph Toni Marks v Brian Dalzel Sly [1982] FCA 89 (28 May 1982)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Re: JOSEPH TONI MARKS
And: BRIAN DALZEL SLY
No. ACT G.15/1981

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Gallop, J
Davies, J
Kelly, J

HEARING

CANBERRA
28:5:1982

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

DECISION

I agree with the reasons delivered by the learned presiding judge. I want myself to make one or two comments because of some of the grounds of appeal. Mr. Marks does not appear to have appreciated that it is a law of the Australian Capital Territory that a motor cyclist should wear a safety helmet.

It is an offence not to do so. A motor cyclist is guilty of an offence if he does not wear a safety helmet. The law is very simply stated and it is clear that a motor cyclist is guilty of an offence if, when he rides on a public street on a motor cycle, he is not wearing a safety helmet.

Now, the undisputed evidence is that on the day in question Mr. Marks was riding a motor cycle on a public street and was not wearing a safety helmet. All sorts of submissions were put to the learned trial judge and have been put to this court, but they simply have no basis whatever. There was no arguable ground of appeal and no ground, indeed, to go to the Supreme Court in the first place from the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions. Mr Marks' failure to understand that it was the clear duty of the court to record a conviction has led him to put forward allegations of bias and pressure, all of which are quite unwarranted. I wish to say, Mr Marks, that I hope that if you ever come to a court again you will not then make such unwarranted allegations.

In this case the law is clear, the fact that you committed an offence is clear, and the court's duty was to record a conviction. As to the penalty, the fact of the matter is that a penalty of only $10, a $10 fine, was imposed and the learned Chief Justice considered that to be an appropriate penalty for a traffic offence of this character and indeed because it was a traffic offence which involved a question of safety, I for myself cannot understand that any argument could be put that it was not appropriate. I agree with the order proposed.