Dobbs v Winzar - [2001] NTSC 25

Dobbs v Winzar & Ors [2001] NTSC 25
PARTIES:DOBBS, PHILLIP
v
WINZAR, KEVIN DAVID
DOBBS, PHILLIP
v
STEVEN MARK EDGINGTON
DOBBS, PHILLIP
v
LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
JURISDICTION: Appellate
FILE NO:JA 22 OF 2001 (20018346)
JA 23 OF 2001 (20000327)
JA 24 OF 2001 (9809365)

DELIVERED:  12 April, 2001
HEARING DATES:  22 March, 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN J
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:D. Conidi
Respondent:  C. Roberts
Solicitors:
Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Incorporated
Respondent:  Director Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  17

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Phillip Dobbs and Kevin David Winzar [2001] NTSC 25

No. JA 22 of 2001 (20018346)
No. JA 23 of 2001 (20000327)
No. JA 24 of 2001 (9809365)
BETWEEN:

PHILLIP DOBBS

Appellant

AND:

KEVIN DAVID WINZAR

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

PHILLIP DOBBS

Appellant

AND:

STEVEN MARK EDGINGTON

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

PHILLIP DOBBS

Appellant

AND:

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

Respondent
CORAM: MILDREN J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 12 April, 2001)
MILDREN J:

These three appeals against sentence relate to three out of four matters dealt with at the same time by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 17 January 2001. The appeals were also heard together.
Background
On 8 December 2000 the appellant appeared before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and entered pleas of guilty to the following matters, which were disposed of by his Worship in the manner indicated below:
(a)   File 9809369 – Date of Offences 6 May 1998
Count 1 –       exceed .00 (.053)                   Fine $200
Count 2 –       drive disqualified                   2 months imprisonment
(b)File 9928719 – Date of Offences 16 December 1999
Count 1 –       withdrawn
Count 2 –       possess an offensive weapon Convicted and fined $250
(This file is not the subject of any appeal).
(c)File 2000327 – Date of Offences 5 January 2000
Count 1 –       drive unlicensed  Fined $300
Count 2 –exceed .08 (.219)                   3 months imprisonment cumulative
Count 3 –control of liquor in a              2 months imprisonment
Restricted area  cumulative
Count 4Withdrawn
Count 5 – give false name to police              convicted without penalty
(d) File 20018346 – Date of Offences 15 November 2000
Count 1 – exceed .08 (.283%)  9 months imprisonment cumulative
Count 2 – drive whilst disqualified               6 months imprisonment cumulative
The total sentences of imprisonment added up to 22 months. His Worship ordered that the sentences be suspended on certain conditions after the appellant had served eight months of those sentences. The sentences were back dated so that the earliest sentence was deemed to have commenced on 1 December, 2000. In addition the file in relation to matter 20000327 notes that the appellant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 5 years from 5 January 2001 and the file in relation to matter 9809365 records a period of licence disqualification for 5 years from 6 May 1998. It appears from the transcript that neither…

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 Dobbs v Winzar

Details

AGLC: Dobbs v Winzar [2001] NTSC 25
Case: [2001] NTSC 25
Decision Date: 12 April, 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dobbs v Winzar, the Appellant faced the court due to multiple incidents of driving under the influence, driving while disqualified, and carrying a knife during an altercation. The Appellant had a history of alcohol-related driving offences, including multiple instances of exceeding the legal alcohol limit while driving and driving while disqualified. The most recent incident involved the Appellant driving in a "dry" area with a high blood alcohol concentration, unlicensed and disqualified from driving, while in possession of alcohol in his vehicle. The Appellant also engaged in a physical altercation during which he brandished a knife, causing his opponent to flee in fear.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of traffic laws concerning driving under the influence and driving while disqualified, the severity of the Appellant's repeated violations, and the appropriate sentencing considering his prior convictions and the circumstances of each offence. The court had to determine if the Appellant's actions warranted a more severe penalty due to his repeated breaches and whether the brandishing of a knife constituted an aggravating factor warranting a harsher sentence.

The court examined the Appellant's extensive history of alcohol-related driving offences, noting that he had been fined and disqualified from driving on multiple occasions. The court highlighted the Appellant's blatant disregard for the law, particularly his repeated violations despite being well aware of the consequences. The court also considered the nature of the Appellant's latest offence, which involved driving in a "dry" area with a significantly high blood alcohol concentration while unlicensed and disqualified. The brandishing of a knife during an altercation was deemed a serious breach of the peace, albeit not resulting in physical harm. The court concluded that the Appellant's repeated violations and the nature of the latest offence warranted a significant custodial sentence to deter future offending and protect the community.

The court ordered the Appellant to serve a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of his repeated alcohol-related driving offences and the need for deterrence. The precise length of the sentence was determined based on the cumulative impact of his prior convictions and the gravity of the latest offence. The court's decision emphasised the importance of holding repeat offenders accountable to prevent further breaches of traffic laws and to ensure public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Appellant’s prior convictions included the following:1.On 18 July 1989 he was convicted of exceed .08 in the Alice Springs Juvenile Court. He was fined $400 and disqualified for 18 months.2On 8 January 1996 he was convicted on 3 separate charges of exceed .08. These offences were committed on separate dates as shown below:Date of Offence Reading Penalty3 May 1995 .235 Fined $550 and disqualified for18 months4 May 1995 .278 Fined $1000 and disqualified for 5 years from 4 May 19958 January 1996 .293 Fined $1200 and disqualified for5 years.3.On 8 January 1996 he was convicted of driving whilst disqualified and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 2 months. The sentence was fully suspended and he was released on a good behaviour bond in the sum of $1000 in his own recognizance for a period of 12 months.Facts In relation to file 9809369, the Appellant was driving a vehicle north along North Stuart Highway. Upon reaching the Tanami Road turnoff, he was stopped at a random breath testing station. He showed a positive result. He was arrested and conveyed to the Alice Springs Police Station where a reading of 0.053% was obtained. When asked why he was driving whilst disqualified and after drinking he made no reply. His counsel submitted that he was driving to Murray Downs with his father and some other people. He was the most sober of the group and was asked to drive, which he did. It is to be noted that it is an offence to have any reading at all if the person is disqualified or does not hold a licence: see Traffic Act, ss 19 (4) and (5) (e). In relation to file 9928719, on 15 December 1999, the appellant, whilst at Mount Nancy Camp saw one Archie Nelson smashing the windows of his sister’s car. The next day the appellant confronted Nelson about this. A fight ensued during which the appellant pulled out from his pocket a 10 centimetre folding pocket knife and threatened to stab Nelson, who, on seeing the knife, ran away. The appellant opened the knife and gave pursuit. Nelson saw the appellant following, stopped and punched the appellant in the mouth. Police, who were in attendance, intervened. The learned Magistrate accepted that the appellant merely intended to frighten Nelson, and that this was not a particularly serious breach of the law. The appellant had no priors for offences against the person. In relation to file 20000327, on 5 January, 2000 the appellant was seen driving in an erratic manner along Kinjarra Drive, Ali Kurang, a “dry” area. The appellant was stopped by police, and a roadside breath test proved positive. Inside the vehicle were two open cans of beer in the possession of two co-offenders, 24 375ml stubbies of VB beer, 20 375ml cans of VB beer, four 750ml bottles of McWilliams Port wine, and a 750ml bottle of Yalumba sweet sherry, which the appellant said belonged to all of them. The appellant admitted to consuming a beer inside the “dry” area. He told police he was on his way to Murray Downs Aboriginal Community which was also a “dry” area. He was conveyed to Ali Curang Police Station where breath analysis revealed a reading of 0.219%. He was unlicensed (and in fact driving whilst disqualified). The liquor and the motor vehicle was seized but at the time of the hearing there was no indication as to whether the vehicle had been forfeited to the Crown under the provisions of the Liquor Act. As can be seen, the appellant had four prior convictions for driving with a concentration of alcohol in his blood above the prescribed limit for which he had received fines and periods of disqualification in the past.

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.