Bonde v White - [2017] TASSC 30

[2017] TASSC 30

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bonde v White [2017] TASSC 30

PARTIES:  BONDE, Michael
  MOORE, Luke
  COLLINS, Bradley
  LUSTED, Gary
  HORAN, Melinda
  v
  WHITE, Brodie Aaron

FILE NO:  469/2017
DELIVERED ON:  8 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  1 May 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Sentence and penalty –Four counts of drive with illicit drugs – Total sentence of disqualification from driving for six months and $1,200 fine manifestly inadequate.

Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas), ss 6A(1), 17.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicants:  E Judd
             Respondent:  J Oxley
Solicitors:
             Applicants:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 30
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 30/2017
File No 469/2017

MICHAEL BONDE, LUKE MOORE, BRADLEY COLLINS,
GARY LUSTED and MELINDA HORAN v BRODIE AARON WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

8 May 2017

The applicants, who are police officers, move to review sentencing orders made by a magistrate, Mr R Marron, concerning the respondent, Brodie White. The respondent was charged with 14 offences across eight complaints. He pleaded guilty to:
·     four counts of driving a motor vehicle while an illicit drug, "THC", was present in his blood contrary to the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 ("the RSAD Act"), s 6A(1), on 29 September 2014, 17 October 2014, 22 October 2014 and 6 May 2016;
·     two counts of breaching bail contrary to the Bail Act 1994, s 9, by failing to appear in court on 3 March 2015 and 16 March 2016;
·     using and possessing a controlled plant, cannabis, on 9 September 2015, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s 25; and
·     unlawfully possessing a dangerous article, a kitchen knife, in a public place on 23 November 2015 contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935, s 15C(1).
On the complaints charging the offences under the RSAD Act committed on 29 September 2014, 17 October 2014 and 22 October 2014 the respondent was also charged with, on each occasion, driving whilst his driver licence was suspended contrary to the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, s 9(1). On 19 January 2017 the police prosecutor tendered no evidence on each of those charges.
The sentencing hearing was protracted. It commenced on 30 June 2016 when the respondent appeared in person and pleaded guilty to some of the charges. Facts were stated and the respondent gave the magistrate some information about himself. The magistrate ordered a pre-sentence report. There was then a delay. The sentencing hearing resumed on 19 January 2017. On that day the respondent was represented. After the facts for the remaining charges were stated and a plea in mitigation was made on behalf of the respondent, the magistrate started to proceed to sentence. In the course of his Honour's remarks a question arose…

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 White

Details

AGLC: Bonde v White [2017] TASSC 30
Case: [2017] TASSC 30
Decision Date: 8 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Bonde v White arose in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, where the respondent, Mr White, sought a review of his sentence following convictions on four counts of driving with illicit drugs in his system. The appellant, Mr Bonde, contended that the total sentence imposed, comprising a six-month disqualification from driving and a $1,200 fine, was manifestly inadequate. The crux of the appeal lay in the severity and appropriateness of the sentence given the nature and frequency of Mr White's offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly inadequate. The appellant argued that the cumulative impact of Mr White's repeated offending warranted a more severe penalty. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, in the context of multiple convictions for driving under the influence of illicit substances.

The court, in reviewing the sentence, emphasised the importance of considering the cumulative impact of repeated offences. It acknowledged the seriousness of driving under the influence of illicit drugs, particularly when committed on multiple occasions. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of Mr White's repeated breaches of road safety laws. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and ordered a review of the penalty. The court increased the disqualification period and imposed a higher fine, reflecting a more appropriate response to the repeated offending behaviour.

In its final orders, the court adjusted Mr White's sentence to reflect the seriousness of his repeated driving under the influence of illicit drugs. The disqualification from driving was extended, and the fine was increased to better align with the principles of sentencing and to serve as an effective deterrent against future offending.

Orders