Fewings v POLICE

In the case of Fewings v Police, the appellant was appealing against the sentence imposed by the magistrate, who found him guilty of several summary offences, including driving while disqualified. The magistrate determined that the repetition of driving offences was contumacious and imposed a sentence of four months imprisonment. The appellant had previously served one month in custody prior to the sentence and argued that the magistrate erred by not taking into account the time spent in custody when deciding whether to suspend the sentence. The appeal raised the issue of whether the sentence should have been wholly or partly suspended.

The legal issue for the court was whether the magistrate erred in not considering the time spent in custody when deciding on the suspension of the sentence. The court noted that an appellate court would only interfere with the sentence if the exercise of discretion had miscarried. The court held that the magistrate did not err in failing to suspend the sentence. The court found that the appellant's criminal conduct was serious, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court also noted that the appellant had a history of driving while disqualified, and the repetition of the offence was contumacious.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the magistrate did not err in failing to suspend the sentence. The court found that the appellant's criminal conduct was serious, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court also noted that the appellant had a history of driving while disqualified, and the repetition of the offence was contumacious. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence remained unchanged. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.