PARTIES: BARRETT, Nacilla Ann v WILSON, Annette Helen (Constable)
FILE NO: 935/2014 DELIVERED ON: 17 February 2015 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 16 February 2015 JUDGMENT OF: Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:
Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Alcohol and drug related offences – Tasmania – Driving with more than prescribed concentration of alcohol in breath or blood – Sentence and penalty – Persistent offender – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.
· driving a motor vehicle while alcohol was present in her breath in a concentration greater than the prescribed concentration, namely 0.134 grams of alcohol per 200 litres of breath (Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act, s 6(1));
· driving while alcohol was present in her body when she did not hold an Australian driver licence (Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act, s 6(2) and (3)(a));
· driving a motor vehicle while alcohol was present in her body, being a person convicted of more than three offences under the Act within an applicable 10 year period (Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act, s 6(2) and (4)).
On 14 October 2014 Magistrate Brett sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 18 months, cumulative to the sentence of imprisonment she was then serving. His Honour ordered that the applicant not be eligible for parole until she had served 10 months of the sentence he imposed. He made a probation order for 24 months from her release, and disqualified her from driving for 4 years, cumulative to the last order of disqualification to which she was subject. Because her car had been clamped, his Honour ordered that the applicant pay the special penalty of $600 required…
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 Barrett v Wilson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Barrett v Wilson [2015] TASSC 3
Case
[2015] TASSC 3
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondents, Barrett and Wilson, were convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit. They appealed the severity of their sentences, arguing that the trial judge had failed to properly consider all relevant factors. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed on Barrett and Wilson were manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the principles of sentencing in the context of alcohol-related driving offences and the appropriate weight to be given to the fact that both respondents were persistent offenders.
The court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to alcohol-related driving offences and noted that the trial judge had considered the seriousness of the offence, the respondents’ previous convictions, and the need for deterrence. The court held that while the sentences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had appropriately balanced the need for general deterrence with the individual circumstances of the respondents. The court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentences, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania confirmed the original sentences imposed on Barrett and Wilson. The court emphasised that while the sentences were severe, they were not outside the range of appropriate penalties for such offences, particularly given the respondents' history of similar convictions. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering both the general deterrent effect of sentences and the individual circumstances of the offender when sentencing for alcohol-related driving offences.