DRAGIC -v- BURROWS [2000] WASCA 385

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 385
Case No:	SJA:1142/2000	Heard:	27 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	27/11/00
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	ZORAN DRAGIC ADRIAN LEIGH BURROWS
Catchwords:	Appeal Driving offence Third conviction for driving under suspension Sentence of 14 months imprisonment Outside range Sentence quashed and one of 4 months imprisonment substituted Appeal Possession of cannabis for own use Less than 1 gram Sentence of 3 months imprisonment quashed Sentence already served No other punishment substituted
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974, s 49(1)(a) and s 49(2) Misuse of Drugs Act
Case References:	Bidwee v Robinson, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 990197; 4 March 1999 Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999 Fernando v Keady, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940135; 4 March 1994 Galby v Wood, unreported; SCt of WA, Library No 920261, 8 May 1992 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595, 14 October 1998 Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114 Milentis v Chitty; unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7826; 4 September 1989 O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 Police v Cadd & Ors (1967) 69 SASR 150 Veen v R (No 2) (1987 1988) 164 CLR 465 Walsham v Bird, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920277; 7 May 1992 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : DRAGIC -v- BURROWS [2000] WASCA 385 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 27 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 27 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1142 of 2000 BETWEEN : ZORAN DRAGIC

Applicant

AND

ADRIAN LEIGH BURROWS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Driving offence - Third conviction for driving under suspension - Sentence of 14 months imprisonment - Outside range - Sentence quashed and one of 4 months imprisonment substituted

Appeal - Possession of cannabis for own use - Less than 1 gram - Sentence of 3 months imprisonment quashed - Sentence already served - No other punishment substituted

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974, s 49(1)(a) and s 49(2)

Misuse of Drugs Act

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr J A Sutherland

Respondent : Mr F Sunderland

Solicitors:

Applicant : McDonald & Sutherland

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bidwee v Robinson, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 990197; 4 March 1999
Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999
Fernando v Keady, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940135; 4 March 1994
Galby v Wood, unreported; SCt of WA, Library No 920261, 8 May 1992
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595, 14 October 1998
Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114
Milentis v Chitty; unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7826; 4 September 1989
O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999
Police…

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 Dragic v Burrows

Details

AGLC: Dragic v Burrows [2000] WASCA 385
Case: [2000] WASCA 385
Decision Date: 27 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dragic v Burrows, the appellant, Mr Dragic, appealed against his sentence for two separate driving offences. The first offence involved a third conviction for driving under suspension, for which he was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. The second offence involved possession of less than 1 gram of cannabis for own use, for which he was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence for the driving offence was outside the range of appropriate punishment and whether the sentence for the cannabis possession offence was already served. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the impact of previous convictions on the severity of the sentence.

The court found that the sentence for the driving offence was outside the range of appropriate punishment, given the appellant's previous convictions and the circumstances of the offence. The court also found that the sentence for the cannabis possession offence had already been served, and therefore no other punishment should be substituted. The court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 4 months imprisonment for the driving offence and quashed the sentence for the cannabis possession offence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the sentence for the driving offence was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 4 months imprisonment, and the sentence for the cannabis possession offence was quashed as it had already been served.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.