Appleton v The Commissioner of Police

Case [2004] QDC 465

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Appleton v The Commissioner of Police [2004] QDC 465

PARTIES:

JOHN ALAN APPLETON
Appellant

v
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Respondent

FILE NO:

15 of 2002

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2004

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

Disqualified driving – on parole at the time – appropriate sentence

COUNSEL:

Mr Lehane for the respondent
Mr Kissick withdrew on behalf of the appellant

SOLICITORS:

DPP for the respondent
Walker Pender withdrew on behalf of the appellant

  1. On 1 October 2002 John Appleton was convicted in the Ipswich Magistrates Court of disqualified driving, driving a vehicle that was unregistered and uninsured and was unlawfully obtaining registration plates.  He then failed to supply his correct name and address to the police and was charged. 

  1. At the time of the sentence he was on parole for a District Court matter and was currently in custody.  He was sentenced to three months imprisonment which was ordered to be served cumulatively to that District Court sentence.

FACTS

  1. At 4.20 am on 20 July 2002 the police attended at Michael Street, Carole Park where they located the appellant in a motor vehicle on the roadway.  Initially he gave police a false name, however, subsequently he told the police his correct name and details.  

  1. He had been disqualified previously in 1996 and 1997.  As at 22 December 1999 he could have applied to obtain his licence back.  He did not do so. 

  1. It was submitted on sentence that he was driving on the evening because he had to take his pregnant partner to hospital as she was experiencing difficulties.  He travelled about three houses down the street in total.  He did attempt to avoid detection.  He pleaded guilty to the offences.  It was submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentence should have been a wholly suspended term of imprisonment or a fine. 

  1. At the hearing of this appeal the appellant did not attend court and did not instruct solicitors to proceed with the appeal so the appeal was heard in his absence. 

  1. A significant factor in this matter is that the appellant has now served the three month sentence and this may be why he was uninterested in appearing at the appeal.

  1. The appellant committed the offence whilst on parole.  There is a need for general deterrence of the offence of driving whilst disqualified.  This was not the only offence of which he was convicted on the day in question. In those circumstances, whilst it may be a high sentence, it cannot be said in my view that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed

Details
AGLC
Appleton v The Commissioner of Police [2004] QDC 465
Case
[2004] QDC 465
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent against a decision of a magistrate that a term of imprisonment was not appropriate for the appellant, who had been convicted of disqualified driving while on parole. The court heard the matter on appeal from the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The appeal was brought by the Commissioner of Police, who sought to challenge the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant by the magistrate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the term of imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was appropriate. The court considered the relevant statutory framework, particularly the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The court was required to examine the principles and purposes of sentencing, and in particular, whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the appellant's parole status at the time of the offence and the need to protect the community.

The court held that the magistrate had erred in finding that a term of imprisonment was not appropriate. The court found that the magistrate had not properly considered the principles and purposes of sentencing and had placed undue weight on the appellant's parole status. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that a term of imprisonment was appropriate. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.