Field v Reardon - [2006] TASSC 20

[2006] TASSC 20

CITATION: Field v Reardon [2006] TASSC 20

PARTIES:  FIELD, David Maxwell
  v
  REARDON, Penelope Lynn (Constable)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 85/2005
DELIVERED ON:  10 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 March 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law - Licensing of drivers – Tasmania - Offences – Driving whilst disqualified – Sentence – Persistent offender – Dishonest production of cancelled licence.

Jarvis v Brown 120/1998; Shepherd v Visser [1999] TASSC 81; Peck v Visser [1999] TASSC 38, followed.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [28]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  B B Prasad
           Respondent:  S J Bender
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Avery Partners
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 20
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 20/2006
File No LCA 85/2005

DAVID MAXWELL FIELD
v CONSTABLE PENELOPE LYNN REARDON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

10 April 2006

The applicant seeks review of a penalty of one month's suspended sentence of imprisonment, a cumulative licence disqualification and cancellation for 16 months, and a fine of $1,000 following his conviction for the traffic offences of driving whilst disqualified and dishonestly using a document. The claim of error is confined to the components of disqualification and cancellation.

On 2 November 2005, a motor vehicle driven by the applicant was intercepted by police due to excessive exhaust emission. The offender produced a "current" driver's licence, but subsequent check showed the licence to have been cancelled in the previous July.

The applicant, aged 31, had worked in the meat industry for over 14 years. As at November 2005, he lived at Brighton and travelled each working day to his place of employment in Moonah. He was intercepted during that journey. The Court was told that, having no other means of travelling to work, he had made:

"… arrangements for a friend who worked in a business at Moonah to collect him and take him to work each day. He paid him petrol money for that purpose because … he and his wife separated and he had no one at home to carry out that chore."

The unchallenged explanation for the act of driving and the production of the cancelled licence was advanced in the following terms:

"What happened on this morning was that the friend, Mr Damian Browning, who lives at Old Beach and who is the nominated driver, phoned him at about eight o'clock and said, 'Look, I can't make it this morning, I'm ill and I'm not going to work'. The defendant was then in the dilemma, well what did he do, foolishly got in his vehicle to drive to work and the fact that the vehicle hadn't been used for some months it was blowing smoke, he was seen, stopped, foolishly handed them the licence that he'd had sitting in his car. He thought he'd lost it actually but, because he hadn't been using the car, when he saw the police, panicked, opened the glove box and there the…

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 Field v Reardon

Details

AGLC: Field v Reardon [2006] TASSC 20
Case: [2006] TASSC 20
Decision Date: 10 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Field v Reardon involves the defendant, Field, who was charged with multiple traffic offences, including driving while disqualified and dishonestly producing a cancelled driver's licence. The matter was heard and determined in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The defendant, having a history of traffic violations, was alleged to have driven while his licence was suspended and subsequently presented a false driver's licence to authorities. The prosecution argued that Field's actions demonstrated a pattern of disregard for traffic laws and warranted a stringent sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the defendant's offences and the consideration of his persistent offending history. The court had to balance the need for deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to determine the relevance and weight of the dishonest production of a cancelled licence in sentencing. The court was required to consider the totality of Field's offending, his previous convictions, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in Tasmanian law.

The court acknowledged Field's extensive history of traffic violations and the seriousness of his current offences. It noted the defendant's lack of remorse and the potential risk he posed to the community. The court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the aims of general and specific deterrence. It imposed a sentence of imprisonment, reflecting the need to protect the community and to discourage future offending. The court also emphasised the importance of addressing Field's underlying issues to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

In summary, the court found the defendant guilty of all charges and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The court considered the totality of Field's offending history and the need for deterrence in reaching its decision. The final orders included a custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community from further harm.

Orders