Dial v Trenerry - [2001] NTSC 52

Dial v Trenerry [2001] NTSC 52
PARTIES:DIAL, Leighton John
v

TRENERRY, Robin Laurence

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA13 of 2000
DELIVERED:  28 June 2001
HEARING DATES:  25 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL
Justices – appeal against sentence – driving at a speed and in a manner dangerous to the public – Justices Act 1928 (NT).

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I Cantrill
Respondent:  M Carey
Solicitors:
Appellant:Withnall Maley
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:        B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0117
Number of pages:  6

Mar0117
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Dial v Trenerry [2001] NTSC 52
No. JA13 of 2000

BETWEEN:
LEIGHTON JOHN DIAL

Appellant
AND:
ROBIN LAURENCE TRENERRY

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 28 June 2001)

Appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin for that on 30 May 1999 that he drove a motor vehicle on various public streets in Darwin at a speed and in a manner dangerous to the public. Upon conviction he was sentenced to three months imprisonment suspended after two months. The magistrate fixed an operational period of two years and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 18 months as from the date of the conviction.

The grounds of appeal, in brief:
(a)The learned magistrate erred in finding the appellant pleaded guilty at the last opportunity.
(b)The learned magistrate erred in failing to take into account the findings made in the appellant’s favour after hearing undisputed facts.
(c)The learned magistrate gave undue emphasis to the appellant’s prior criminal record unrelated to driving.
(d)The learned magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that after his arrest the appellant has successfully undertaken courses to improve his driving techniques and failed to consider that matter as evidence of attempted rehabilitation.
At the conclusion of the hearing I ordered that the appeal be dismissed for reasons given thereafter and these are those reasons.
I need not go into all of the detail of the offending. It occurred early on the afternoon of a Sunday on public streets in the Darwin area. The appellant was being pursued by police for a traffic infringement and he was aware at all times that the police were in pursuit. He travelled through those streets at a maximum speed of at least 110 kph, passing through a red traffic light, past slower vehicles and spending some time on the wrong side of the road while doing so. At one stage he stopped at the units where he resided and had the opportunity to discontinue his criminal behaviour but changed his mind and resumed the journey, continuing at speed, crossing double white lines, on a dual carriage way he drove his vehicle left and right between cars he was overtaking. The traffic was moderate to heavy. Another police vehicle had joined the chase and…

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 Dial v Trenerry

Details

AGLC: Dial v Trenerry [2001] NTSC 52
Case: [2001] NTSC 52
Decision Date: 28 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dial v Trenerry, the appellant, Dial, was convicted by a Justice of the Peace of driving in a dangerous manner. The conviction arose from an incident where Dial was observed driving at a high speed and in a manner that posed a significant risk to the public. Dial appealed against the sentence imposed by the Justice, arguing that it was excessive and should be quashed. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Justice of the Peace was appropriate and within the statutory limits. Dial contended that the sentence was too severe and did not take into account the mitigating factors present in the case. The court had to determine whether the sentence was an abuse of the Justice's discretion under the Justices Act 1928. The court also needed to consider whether there were any errors in the application of the law by the Justice that warranted a reduction or quashing of the sentence.

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court considered the speed at which Dial was driving, the nature of the road, and the potential risk to the public. The court also evaluated the mitigating factors presented by Dial, such as his otherwise good driving record and his immediate cessation of driving upon being stopped. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Justice of the Peace was not an abuse of discretion and was within the statutory limits. The court found no errors in the application of the law by the Justice and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the sentence imposed by the Justice of the Peace, affirming that it was appropriate and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The appeal was dismissed, and Dial was required to comply with the sentence as determined by the Justice.

Orders