BRAND -v- VULETA [2005] WASCA 24
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASCA 24 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1106/2004 | 19 JANUARY 2005 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 23/02/05 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Disqualification period of three years for driving under the influence quashed and two year disqualification substituted in lieu | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TIMOTHY EDWARD BRAND ADRIAN VULETA |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Driving Offences One driving episode giving rise to four charges First offence of driving under the influence of alcohol Offender's blood alcohol level 0.181 per cent Whether three year disqualification from holding a drivers' licence for driving under the influence charge manifestly excessive Whether offender's manner of driving was relevant in determining the appropriate penalty Whether Magistrate gave insufficient regard to the offender's medical condition and contrition Whether Magistrate gave too much regard to the offender having previously been a police officer |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(b) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 53, s 54, s 60, s 63 |
Case References: | Brooks v Taylor & Stewart, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960410; 31 July 1996 Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509 Dickens v The Queen [2004] WASCA 179 Forbes v Durant [1999] WASCA 85 Jackamarra v Orr [2003] WASCA 278 Mullane v Smith, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 1318; 10 November 1989; (1989) 10 MVR 111 Paterson v Steer [2000] WASCA 250 Richards v Damianopolous [2002] WASCA 159 Smith v Pritchard [2003] WASCA 6; (2003) 37 MVR 525 Taylor v Samuels (1977) 16 SASR 266 Walley v Miles, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950179; 10 April 1995 Australian Coal and Shale Employee's Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 Perry v Stark (1990) 12 MVR 515 Pink v Webb (1990) 11 MVR 539 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Reynolds v Wilkinson (1948) 51 WALR 17 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
ADRIAN VULETA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : MR T MCINTYRE SM
File No : PE 5085 of 2003
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Driving Offences - One driving episode giving rise to four charges - First offence of driving under the influence of alcohol - Offender's blood alcohol level 0.181 per cent - Whether three year disqualification from holding a drivers' licence for driving under the influence charge manifestly excessive - Whether offender's manner of driving was relevant in determining the appropriate penalty - Whether Magistrate gave insufficient regard to the offender's medical condition and contrition - Whether
(Page 2)
Magistrate gave too much regard…
Continue reading Brand v Vuleta
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Brand v Vuleta [2005] WASCA 24
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 24
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Brand v Vuleta, the respondent, a former police officer, was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court to a three-year disqualification from holding a driver’s licence for driving under the influence of alcohol. The respondent had a blood alcohol level of 0.181 per cent at the time of the incident, and was also charged with exceeding the speed limit, driving in a manner dangerous to the public, and failing to stop after an accident. The court was required to decide whether the three-year disqualification was manifestly excessive, whether the respondent’s manner of driving was relevant in determining the penalty, and whether the Magistrate gave insufficient regard to the respondent’s medical condition and contrition, and too much regard to his previous employment as a police officer.
The court held that the three-year disqualification was manifestly excessive, given the respondent’s otherwise good character and the fact that he had no prior convictions. The court found that the respondent’s manner of driving was relevant in determining the penalty, as he had driven in a dangerous manner that endangered the public. However, the court also found that the Magistrate had given insufficient regard to the respondent’s medical condition and contrition, and had given too much regard to his previous employment as a police officer. The court held that the Magistrate had failed to properly consider the principles of sentencing and had not given adequate weight to the mitigating factors in the case.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the three-year disqualification period, substituting a two-year disqualification in its place. The court found that the two-year disqualification was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offence and the respondent’s medical condition and contrition. The court also found that the Magistrate had given insufficient weight to the mitigating factors in the case, and had given too much weight to the respondent’s previous employment as a police officer. The court held that the appropriate penalty in this case was a two-year disqualification from holding a driver’s licence, and that the Magistrate had erred in imposing a three-year disqualification.
The court held that the three-year disqualification was manifestly excessive, given the respondent’s otherwise good character and the fact that he had no prior convictions. The court found that the respondent’s manner of driving was relevant in determining the penalty, as he had driven in a dangerous manner that endangered the public. However, the court also found that the Magistrate had given insufficient regard to the respondent’s medical condition and contrition, and had given too much regard to his previous employment as a police officer. The court held that the Magistrate had failed to properly consider the principles of sentencing and had not given adequate weight to the mitigating factors in the case.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the three-year disqualification period, substituting a two-year disqualification in its place. The court found that the two-year disqualification was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offence and the respondent’s medical condition and contrition. The court also found that the Magistrate had given insufficient weight to the mitigating factors in the case, and had given too much weight to the respondent’s previous employment as a police officer. The court held that the appropriate penalty in this case was a two-year disqualification from holding a driver’s licence, and that the Magistrate had erred in imposing a three-year disqualification.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Disqualification period of three years for driving under the influence quashed
and two year disqualification substituted in lieu
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.