Baird v Davies - [2006] QDC 287

[2006] QDC 287

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE DODDS

Appeal No 89 of 2006

ALVIE GUY BAIRD	Appellant
and
CONST V E DAVIES	Respondent
Appeal No 90 of 2006
ALVIE GUY BAIRD	Appellant
and
CONST MISHE PASCOE	Respondent
CAIRNS ..DATE 02/06/2006
JUDGMENT

02062006 D.1 T7/GAK M/T CNS1/2006 (Dodds DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against sentences imposed by a	1
Magistrates Court. On that date, the appellant was before the
Magistrate on the 30th of March 2006 in the Mareeba of liquor. His blood alcohol concentration was .27 per cent,

a ridiculously high reading, as the Magistrate observed,
driving whilst disqualified, driving an unregistered vehicle,
driving an uninsured vehicle. All of those offences were

committed on the 14th of February 2006.

He was also before the Magistrate for a breach of the Bail Act, committed on the 6th of March 2006. He had been granted bail after his detention on the 14th of February 2006 and had failed to answer that bail. He had been arrested under the authority of a warrant issued by the Magistrates Court at

7.30 p.m. on the 29th of March 2006. He was grossly
intoxicated.

When the matter came before the Magistrate, the Magistrate was informed that he had got his Court date mixed up. As to the

driving offences, the Magistrate was told by his
representative that the car he was driving was one his brother
intended to buy and he was driving it to a mechanically
knowledgeable friend for advice about repairs necessary to

obtain a roadworthy certificate.

He had relevant prior convictions. On the 11th of January
1998 before the Cairns Magistrates Court, an offence of drink
driving, when his blood alcohol concentration was .11 per
02062006 D.1 T7/GAK M/T CNS1/2006 (Dodds DCJ)

JUDGMENT

cent; and an offence of unlicensed driving; on the 17th of	1
December 1994 before the Cooktown Magistrates Court; an offence of unlicensed driving; an offence of driving whilst under the influence of liquor - his blood alcohol concentration on that occasion was .243 per cent; on the 19th

of May 1995 before the Cairns Magistrates Court, driving under
the influence of liquor - his blood alcohol concentration was

.182 per cent; disqualified driving.

Additionally, he had a history of breaches of the Bail Act:

on the 8th of October 1984 before the Cairns Magistrates the 24th of February 1996 before the Cairns Magistrates Court - on this occasion he was sentenced to imprisonment for five days; on the 24th of March 1996 before the Cairns Magistrates

Court; on the 25th of October 1997 before the Mareeba before the Mareeba Magistrates Court.
Magistrates Court; in October 2000 before the Mareeba
Magistrates Court; on the 5th of February 2001 before the

In addition to the prior Court appearances and convictions I have referred to, his criminal history, which was also before the Magistrate, indicates, in addition to the various offences, continual breaches of orders made by Courts.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baird v Davies and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QDC 287
Decision Date: 2/06/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Baird v Davies, the appellant, Alvie Guy Baird, appealed against the sentences imposed by a Magistrate for several driving and bail-related offences. Baird had been found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving while disqualified, driving an unregistered vehicle, and driving an uninsured vehicle. Additionally, he was convicted for breaching bail conditions. The court had to determine whether the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were appropriate given Baird's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The District Court considered the relevance of the appellant's prior convictions and his history of disregarding court orders, which included multiple instances of driving under the influence and driving while disqualified. The Court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for deterrence and the appropriate response to repeat offenders. It noted that the Magistrate's sentence for disqualified driving was deemed manifestly excessive, while the sentence for driving under the influence was considered within the bounds of sound sentencing discretion.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the sentence for disqualified driving from nine months to five months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the drink driving offence. The Court emphasised the importance of upholding court orders and the need for appropriate penalties for serious repeat offences, particularly those involving driving while disqualified. The final orders involved setting aside the original sentence for disqualified driving and imposing a new sentence of five months imprisonment for that offence, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the drink driving offence. The other sentences and disqualifications imposed by the Magistrate were upheld.

Orders