Bullock v Bower

[2015] ACTSC 261

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Bullock v Bower

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 261

Hearing Date:

24 July 2015

DecisionDate:

24 July 2015

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [21] to [23] below.

Category:

Sentence

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – re-sentence after successful appeal – offence of “drug-driving” as a first offender – offender needs regular medical attention – offender has care of 15-year-old grandson – rehabilitation efforts by offender – reasons to impose disqualification period less than default disqualification period – partial costs order made in offender’s favour.

Legislation Cited:

Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), ss 29(1), 34(1)

Cases Cited:

Bullock v Bower [2015] ACTSC 185

Parties:

John William Bullock (Appellant)

Charmaine Bower (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms K Bolas (Appellant)

Mr K Lee (Respondent)

Solicitors

Kim Bolas Criminal Law (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 8 of 2015

Introduction

1. On 16 July 2015, I upheld John Bullock’s appeal against a sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court earlier this year, and I must now re-sentence him. 

The offence

1. His sentence was imposed for an offence of “drug-driving”, arising from a drug test administered to Mr Bullock after a random traffic stop, which revealed the presence of cannabis in his body. 

1. Mr Bullock was sentenced as a first offender in relation to the offence, meaning that he had not previously been found guilty of an offence of drug- or drink-driving under s 29(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). In the Magistrates Court, and while unrepresented, Mr Bullock had entered an early plea of guilty.

1. The facts of the offence are set out in my judgment on the appeal (Bullock v Bower [2015] ACTSC 185) and do not need to be described in detail here. I note, however:

(a)that the offence involved a drug generally treated by the law as a less dangerous illicit drug;

(b)that there is, however, no claim that Mr Bullock was unaware that he would still have cannabis present in his body; and

(c)that there was nothing in Mr Bullock’s driving that brought him to the attention of police. 

1. On the other hand, the offence was committed at a time of day and in a local shopping area where traffic was described as moderate, and Mr Bullock did have a passenger in his car. 

Subjective circumstances

1. One of the problems with the Magistrates Court sentencing was that there was very little information before the sentencing Magistrate about Mr Bullock’s personal circumstances, although her Honour did have Mr Bullock’s criminal record.  That document showed that Mr Bullock, who is now 54 years old, was a regular offender as a younger man, albeit with a criminal history consisting mainly of traffic offences, but that since 1992 his only other offending has consisted of offences in 2008 of trafficking in cannabis and possession of stolen property, for which he received a suspended sentence. 

1. In the Magistrates Court,…