Adams v Slattery - [2014] QDC 55

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adams v Slattery [2014] QDC 55

PARTIES:

SENIOR CONSTABLE LEE BRIAN ADAMS
(appellant)

v

MICHAEL JAMES SLATTERY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D182/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Section 222 Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2014 at Maroochydore

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed and pursuant to s 225 of the Justices Act 1886 and in respect of each of the orders made by the Magistrate on 7 November 2013:

The order imposing a good behaviour bond is set aside and instead and in relation to all of the respondent’s offences committed on 6 November 2013, he is fined the sum of $2,000.It is further directed that the Registrar give the particulars of the fine to SPER under s 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; (a)

The order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a drivers’ license for six months, in respect of the offence against s 79(1) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, is amended to a period of 12 months;(b)

The order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a drivers’ license for six months, in respect of the offence against s 80(11) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, is confirmed; and(c)

The order that convictions be recorded in respect of each of the respondent’s offences, is confirmed.(d)

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – appeal by complainant – where respondent pleaded guilty to offences of wilfully making unnecessary noise or smoke, obstruct police, fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis, and drive under the influence of liquor – where it is not usual for guilty pleas to be entered in respect of both an offence of fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis, and of drive under the influence of liquor – where the sentencing Magistrate erred by making a single order for all four offences – where imposition of a bond was an inappropriate response to the offending – whether s 16 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 applied to dealing with the offences of fail to provide specimen of breath and drive under influence of liquor and discussion of considerations arising in respect of dealing with such a coincidence of offending

Criminal Code Act 1899, s 16, s 17
Justices Act 1886, s 47, s 222, s 225
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 13, s 31, s 49, s 188(1)(a)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 790(1)
State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, s 34
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 79(1), s 80, s 90A, s 90D, s 91K, s 91R,
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009, s 291(1)(b)

Constable S J Miers v Blewitt [2013] QCA 23
R v Dibble; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2014] QCA 8
R v Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330; [1993] QCA 268
Schwarz v Queensland Police…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v Slattery

Details

AGLC: Adams v Slattery [2014] QDC 55
Case: [2014] QDC 55
Decision Date: 27 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adams v Slattery involved an appeal by the complainant, Adams, against the sentence imposed by the respondent, Slattery, who had pleaded guilty to several offences. The respondent was found guilty of making unnecessary noise or smoke, obstructing police, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, and driving under the influence of liquor. These offences were committed on the same night, leading to the imposition of a single sentence by the Magistrate. Adams argued that the sentence was inadequate and excessive, particularly because a bond was imposed instead of a more appropriate punishment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court needed to consider whether the Magistrate's decision to impose a single order for all four offences was appropriate, and whether section 16 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 applied to the concurrent offences of failing to provide a specimen of breath and driving under the influence of liquor. The court also had to consider the nature of the offences and the appropriate response to the offending.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the Magistrate had erred in making a single order for all four offences, as it is not usual for guilty pleas to be entered in respect of both an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and of driving under the influence of liquor. The court further found that the imposition of a bond was an inappropriate response to the offending. The appeal was allowed, and the court set aside the order imposing a good behaviour bond and imposed a fine of $2,000 instead. The court also amended the disqualification period for the respondent's driver's license from six months to twelve months, confirmed the order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a driver's license for six months, and confirmed the order that convictions be recorded in respect of each of the respondent's offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed and pursuant to s 225 of the Justices Act 1886 and in respect of each of the orders made by the Magistrate on 7 November 2013:

The order imposing a good behaviour bond is set aside and instead and in relation to all of the respondent’s offences committed on 6 November 2013, he is fined the sum of $2,000.It is further directed that the Registrar give the particulars of the fine to SPER under s 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; (a)

The order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a drivers’ license for six months, in respect of the offence against s 79(1) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, is amended to a period of 12 months;(b)

The order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a drivers’ license for six months, in respect of the offence against s 80(11) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, is confirmed; and(c)

The order that convictions be recorded in respect of each of the respondent’s offences, is confirmed.(d)

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Adams v Slattery [2014] QDC 55
PARTIES:	SENIOR CONSTABLE LEE BRIAN ADAMS (appellant) v MICHAEL JAMES SLATTERY (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D182/13
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Section 222 Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	21 February 2014 at Maroochydore
JUDGE:	Long SC DCJ
ORDER:	*Appeal allowed and pursuant to s 225 of the Justices Act* 1886 and in respect of each of the orders made by the Magistrate on 7 November 2013:** The order imposing a good behaviour bond is set aside and instead and in relation to all of the respondent’s offences committed on 6 November 2013, he is fined the sum of $2,000.It is further directed that the Registrar give the particulars of the fine to SPER under s 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; (a) The order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a drivers’ license for six months, in respect of the offence against s 79(1) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, is amended to a period of 12 months;(b) The order disqualifying the respondent from holding or obtaining a drivers’ license for six months, in respect of the offence against s 80(11) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, is confirmed; and(c) The order that convictions be recorded in respect of each of the respondent’s offences, is confirmed.(d)
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – appeal by complainant – where respondent pleaded guilty to offences of wilfully making unnecessary noise or smoke, obstruct police, fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis, and drive under the influence of liquor – where it is not usual for guilty pleas to be entered in respect of both an offence of fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis, and of drive under the influence of liquor – where the sentencing Magistrate erred by making a single order for all four offences – where imposition of a bond was an inappropriate response to the offending – whether s 16 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 applied to dealing with the offences of fail to provide specimen of breath and drive under influence of liquor and discussion of considerations arising in respect of dealing with such a coincidence of offending Criminal Code Act 1899, s 16, s 17 Justices Act 1886, s 47, s 222, s 225 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 13, s 31, s 49, s 188(1)(a) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 790(1) State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, s 34 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, s 79(1), s 80, s 90A, s 90D, s 91K, s 91R, Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009, s 291(1)(b) Constable S J Miers v Blewitt [2013] QCA 23 R v Dibble; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2014] QCA 8 R v Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330; [1993] QCA 268 Schwarz v Queensland Police…