Bonde v Newton - [2011] TASSC 21

[2011] TASSC 21

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bonde v Newton [2011] TASSC 21

PARTIES: BONDE, Acting Sergeant Michael
HIBBLE, Senior Const Kim

BONDE, A/Sgt Michael
V
NEWTON, Carla Jane

FILE NO/S:  158/2011
DELIVERED ON:  11 May 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 April 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeals and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – The hearing – Review of sentence – $200 fine for thrice driving while licence was suspended and using an unregistered vehicle and a vehicle with no premium cover – Poor driving record – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate.
Dunford v R A10/1995, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates 272

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  J P Ransom
           Respondent:  No appearance
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Respondent:  In person

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 21
Number of paragraphs: 19

Serial No 21/2011
File No 158/2011

ACTING SERGEANT MICHAEL BONDE, SENIOR CONST KIM HIBBLE AND A/SGT MICHAEL A BONDE v CARLA JANE NEWTON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD CJ
11 May 2011

The prosecution sought to review a sentence imposed by a magistrate, Mr Marron, on 18 February 2011 on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. I agree that it was for the reasons I will give.

I note that the respondent did not appear at the hearing of the motion to review despite notice being given to her.

The sentence was a fine of $200. When it was imposed, the respondent uttered: "Is that all?" It is apparent that she was surprised at the leniency of the sentence. No doubt the reason for that surprise was based on her knowledge of her poor driving record. Despite her reaction, I must reach my own conclusions concerning whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

She appeared on three complaints and pleaded guilty to all charges. At all material times, her driver's licence was suspended due to an accumulation of demerit points. The period of suspension was 27 October to 26 January. On 4 November 2010 she drove a vehicle while her licence was suspended, used it when it was not registered and used it when it was not insured under the Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Act 1973. Her vehicle had become unregistered from 8 October. On 8 December 2010 she again drove a vehicle while her licence was under suspension. On 4 January 2011 she committed the same offence once again.

On 4 November the offences were committed on Elphin Road, Launceston. She gave no explanation for them.

On 8 December the offence was committed on the Kings Meadows Connector. Her explanation for driving under suspension was that she had to pick up a child. She claimed she had no other way of doing so.

On 4 January the offence was committed on Barclay Street, Evandale. Her explanation for driving under suspension was that she had noticed her four cats had fleas. Unable to purchase the right treatment at Evandale, where she lived, she decided to drive to Coles to purchase some. I note…

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 Bonde v Newton

Details

AGLC: Bonde v Newton [2011] TASSC 21
Case: [2011] TASSC 21
Decision Date: 11 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bonde v Newton involved an appeal by the defendant against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. Bonde had been fined $200 for driving three times while his licence was suspended, using an unregistered vehicle, and operating a vehicle without the required premium cover. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given his history of poor driving conduct. The matter was brought before the court for review to determine if the fine imposed was appropriate.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly inadequate. The appellant contended that the $200 fine was insufficient given his poor driving record and the multiple offences committed. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's driving history, and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the seriousness of the breaches.

In reviewing the sentence, the court considered the multiple and repeated nature of the offences, including driving while the licence was suspended, using an unregistered vehicle, and operating a vehicle without the required premium cover. The court acknowledged the appellant's poor driving record, which likely contributed to the breaches. The court concluded that while the $200 fine was within the statutory limit, it did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the repeated offences and the appellant's history of driving misconduct. Consequently, the court found the sentence to be manifestly inadequate and allowed the appeal. The court ordered a new sentence to be imposed by the Magistrates Court, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's driving history.

Orders