Clarkson v Earle - [2016] ACTSC 331

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Clarkson v Earle
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 331
Hearing Date:	26 October 2016
DecisionDate:	26 October 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal against disqualification period allowed. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver license for nine months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Driving matters – Drug-driving – appeal against disqualification period –– error of law in approach to determination of disqualification period – sentencing purposes not considered – appeal allowed STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Words and Phrases – “automatically disqualified” and “default disqualification” – whether difference in meaning – question not answered
Legislation Cited:	Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 208, 214, 218 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) ss 20, 32, 33, 34 Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Burow v Hoyer [2015] ACTSC 21; 292 FLR 325 Stoehr v Meyer [2016] ACTSC 144 Tindall v Spalding [2014] ACTSC 253; 10 ACTLR 198
Parties:	Simon Jon Clarkson (Appellant) Phillip James Earle (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J O’Keefe (Appellant) Mr S McLaughlin (Respondent)
Solicitors John O’Keefe Solicitor (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ACT (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 19 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Magistrate Boss Date of Decision: 7 March 2016 Case Title: Earle v Clarkson Court File Number: CC 3372 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

On 7 March 2016, the Magistrate convicted the appellant of trafficking in cannabis and driving with a prescribed oral drug in his oral fluid (inferentially, cannabis) as a first offender.

In relation to the offence of trafficking in cannabis, her Honour imposed a two-year good behaviour order with conditions requiring supervision for 12 months, engagement in programs as directed and the provision of drug samples as required. There is no appeal against that sentence.

The appellant appealed against the disqualification period imposed for the offence of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid as a first offender. The Magistrate sentenced the appellant to a two-year good behaviour order which was concurrent with the good behaviour order imposed on the drug offence and carried the same conditions. Her Honour allowed the automatic three year licence disqualification period to apply.

The offence is created by s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) (RTAD Act). It carries a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units ($1,500). The minimum disqualification period is six months and the default disqualification period is three years.

Facts and Decision

At 10:05 am on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, police stopped the appellant’s vehicle in Oaks Estate. The appellant was the sole occupant of the vehicle. He submitted to alcohol and drug screening tests. The drug screening test was positive (inferentially, to cannabis). The appellant was conveyed to the City Police Station, where breath analysis confirmed that the appellant had a prescribed drug in his oral fluid.

In relation to the offence of drug driving, the Magistrate noted that the appellant was on conditional liberty…

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 Clarkson v Earle

Details

AGLC: Clarkson v Earle [2016] ACTSC 331
Case: [2016] ACTSC 331
Decision Date: 26 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarkson and Earle were involved in a legal dispute regarding a drug-driving charge, which was heard by the court. The primary issue was the determination of the disqualification period for Earle's driver's license, with the appeal focusing on the court's approach to this decision. The lower court had imposed a disqualification period, which Earle contested on appeal, arguing that the court had erred in its legal approach.

The court was tasked with examining whether the lower court correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legal provisions. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was an error in law concerning the interpretation of "automatically disqualified" and "default disqualification," and whether the court had failed to consider sentencing purposes adequately. The court found that the lower court had indeed erred in its approach, as it did not sufficiently consider the sentencing purposes and misconstrued the statutory terms.

In light of the above, the appeal was allowed, and the court re-evaluated the appropriate disqualification period. The court concluded that the correct disqualification period should be nine months, thereby modifying the lower court's decision. The court's decision highlights the importance of correctly interpreting statutory terms and considering sentencing purposes when determining disqualification periods in drug-driving cases. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the disqualification period was allowed, and Earle was to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license for nine months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against disqualification period allowed. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver license for nine months.

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.