The proper construction of the Road Rulles
11Her Honour accepted the thrust of the defendant's case, namely, that unless a vehicle stops at a traffic light, a breach of r 56 of the Road Rules cannot occur. In the event that a vehicle drives through the intersection without stopping, when the light is red, it is only a breach of r 59 which could result. That construction of the Road Rules is plainly wrong.
12Offences under the Road Rules are strict liability offences, except where the Rules expressly provide otherwise (see r 10-1(2)). Rule 56 imposes an obligation to stop at a red light. A failure to stop cannot establish the absence of an essential ingredient of the offence. That conclusion is patently illogical on the face of r 56(1) which imposes two obligations on 'a driver approaching or at traffic lights showing a red light'. The first is that the driver 'must stop'. Where the driver 'must stop' is specified in paragraphs (a) to (c). The second obligation is that the driver 'must not proceed past' the specified points, 'until the traffic lights show a green or flashing yellow traffic light or no traffic light'.
13In this case, there being a stop line at the traffic light in question, that was where a driver was obliged to stop when the traffic light was red when approached (r 56(1)(a)). Failure to stop and not to proceed while the light showed red, as specified, results in a breach of the Rule, for which a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units is imposed, unless the driver comes within the exceptions provided in r 58, or establishes a defence. The defences are those provided in r 10-1(3), namely that the offence was the result of an accident, or could not have been avoided by reasonable efforts.
14The notion that a driver who fails to stop at all when a traffic light shows red and instead, drives through the traffic lights while they continue to show a red light, commits no offence under r 56, is entirely illogical and contrary to the express statutory requirements imposed on drivers by the Rule. The only exceptions to those obligations are those specified by r 58.
15In this case, what had to be established against the defendant in relation to the alleged breach of r 56 was:
(a) it was he who was the driver of the motor vehicle;
(b) that when he approached or was at the traffic light, it was showing a red light;
(c) that he failed to stop the vehicle, as near as practicable to, but before, reaching the stop line and
(d) that he proceeded past the stop line before the traffic lights showed a green or flashing yellow light or no traffic light.
16In the factual circumstances alleged, where the defendant is claimed to have driven through a red light at the intersection, without stopping at all, it is apparent, as the defendant himself contended below, that a breach of r 59 also occurred. The essential elements of that offence would be:
(a) while the traffic lights at the intersection were showing a red light,
(b) the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle; and
(c) he entered the intersection.
17Contrary to the conclusion which her Honour reached, I am satisfied that unless coming within one of the exceptions specified in r 58, this statutory scheme does not admit of the possibility that a driver who fails to stop at all at a red light, as r 56 requires, commits no breach of the obligation to stop. It is only in r 58 that the circumstances in which a driver who is approaching lights showing a red or yellow traffic light does not have to stop, are prescribed. Unsurprisingly, driving through a red light without stopping at all, does not fall within one of those exceptions. Whether a defence may be available under r 10 in particular circumstances, may also arise for consideration, but does not need to be further dealt with here.
18That a breach of r 59 may also have occurred in a particular case is irrelevant to the question of whether or not r 56 has been breached. Rule 59 is not concerned with whether or not a driver stops at a red light. A breach of r 59 may occur, even if a vehicle has first stopped, as r 56 requires, if the driver then moves and enters the intersection or marked crossing, while the light remains red. Conversely, r 56 is not concerned with entering an intersection. It is concerned with stopping and not proceeding past certain designated points before an intersection or marked crossing, where there are traffic lights, while the light remains red. A breach of r 56 will occur if the driver fails to stop, even if, by the time that the intersection is entered, the traffic light has turned green. In that event there will be a breach of r 56, but not a breach of r 59.
19It is quite consistent with the statutory scheme that a driver who fails to stop at all and drives straight through a red light at an intersection or marked crossing, may breach both r 56 and r 59. Both breaches carry maximum penalties of 20 penalty units. If charged and found to have committed both breaches, in imposing penalty on the driver a court will unquestionably have to apply the principal of totality, in order to properly reflect the criminality involved in both breaches. That the one event may not result in breaches of both Rules, simply does not follow.
20The Road Rules are based on the Australian Road Rules, and are designed to ensure that the Road Rules are substantially uniform with those specified elsewhere in Australia (see r 3 Objects). The conclusions which I have reached are consistent with views reached in other jurisdictions as to the proper construction of Road Rules. In Le Poidevin v Police (SA) [2005] SASC 314 it was observed by White J at [16] - [19]:
"16 The Magistrate was also correct in concluding that r 59(1) of the ARR imposes an obligation which is absolute. Proof by the prosecution of an intention on the part of the driver at the relevant time is not an element of the offence. The obligation not to enter an intersection at which a red light is showing is not made subject to any qualification such as " without reasonable cause ". Consideration of the purpose and context of r 59, and of authority, support the conclusion that the obligation is absolute. Part 6 of the ARR, of which r 59 forms part, should be regarded as establishing a scheme as to the obligations of a driver when confronted with traffic lights showing yellow or red. 3 Rule 56 of the ARR specifies the place at or before which a driver of a vehicle approaching traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop and provides that the driver must not proceed past that point until the traffic lights indicate that it is permissible to do so. Rule 57 governs the obligations of the driver approaching traffic lights showing a yellow traffic light. It provides (relevantly):
...
17 The obligations imposed by r 57 are subject to the qualification in r 57(3), that if the driver is not able to stop safely in accordance with the obligations contained in sub- rules (1) and (2) and enters the intersection, the driver must leave the intersection as soon as the driver can do so safely. Rule 58 provides for a circumstance in which a driver does not have to stop at a red light, namely, where there is, at the same time, a green turn arrow. It is to be observed that the obligations contained in r 59 are not subject to any qualification of the kind contained in r 57(3).
18 It should be accepted that the purpose of r 59, and indeed the ARR generally, is to promote public safety. The risk of collision and consequent injury or damage as a result of vehicles entering intersections against a red light is obvious. The purpose of r 59 is to reduce, if not to eliminate, that risk. Statutes whose purpose is the safeguarding of the public by prohibiting certain acts are commonly construed as imposing obligations which are absolute. 4
19 It is not uncommon for an obligation such as that imposed by r 59 of the ARR to be construed as absolute. The decisions in August v Fingleton 5 , Franklin v Stacey 6 , SA Police v Oakes 7 , and Vandenbergh v Police 8 provide examples."
21Layton J took the view in Jordan v Police [2006] SASC 205:
"52 At the hearing of the appeal counsel for the respondent raised another issue in relation to the proper interpretation of the evidence before the Magistrate. This case was argued in the Magistrates Court on the basis that the stop line marked the beginning of the intersection. Mr Jacobi submitted, however, that definition of the "intersection" for the purposes of the relevant offence was defined by the dictionary of the ARR as follows:
intersection means the area where 2 or more roads, (except any road related area), meet, and includes:
(a) any area of the road where vehicles travelling on different roads might collide ...
53 On this definition there is a small section of road between the stop line and the commencement of the intersection. This distinction was demonstrated by the contrast between the obligations imposed by r 56 and r 59 of the ARR . Rule 59, as already set out, creates an obligation not to enter an intersection when the traffic lights are red. Rule 56, on the other hand, creates an obligation to stop before a stop line. Further support for this distinction was found by the respondent in r 57 of the ARR , which provides that:
... "
22In Byrne v Hulbert [2009] ACTSC 124, Penfold J observed:
20. The photographs show that the rear wheels of the vehicle were behind the stop line, but most of the vehicle, including the front wheels, had passed over that stop line.
21. I accept that the vehicle was stopped for the purposes of the Road Rules. However, having regard to the requirement in r 56(2)(a) to stop as near as practicable to, but before reaching, the stop line, I am satisfied that Mr Byrne had in each case contravened r 56(2) in failing to bring his vehicle to a stop before it reached the stop line.
22. I am inclined to the view that the offence is committed if any part of the vehicle has travelled beyond the stop line; apart from anything else, this would be more consistent with a likely aim of keeping a buffer space between vehicles approaching to stop at the intersection and pedestrians using the marked foot crossing. However, for the purposes of this appeal I do not need to decide whether a vehicle "reaches" the stop line when any part of it reaches that line or only when its front wheels reach the line, and in the absence of argument on that question I refrain from reaching any conclusion.
23These judgments were not referred to below, but each illuminates the fundamental point of construction which her Honour overlooked, namely that r 56 and r 59 of the Road Rules concern themselves with two entirely different obligations, both of which must be observed by drivers. It is no answer to an allegation of breach of the obligation to stop, which is imposed by r 56, that a breach of r 59 may also have occurred.