Garner v Commissioner of Police - [2018] QDC 223

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Garner v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 223

PARTIES:

JUSTIN LESLIE GARNER

(appellant)

v

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

19/17

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2018 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2018

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Justices Act 1886 – section 222 – appeal against sentence – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of driving under the influence of liquor or a drug – where appellant was fined and disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for a period of 16 months - whether the period of disqualification imposed was manifestly excessive

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Queensland Police Service v Pacey [2010] QDC 240

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

J Geary for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act against a sentence handed down on the 25^th of October 2017 in the Magistrates Court at Maryborough. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence of liquor or a drug, such offence having occurred on the 7^th of September 2017. He was fined $1300 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 16 months. This appeal relates to the length of that disqualification period. The facts relevant to the charge were that at about 5.40 pm on the 7^th of September 2017, police were called to Teddington Road at Maroochydore in response to a report that they had received.

Upon arrival, the vehicle they were looking for was not there. They then drove approximately eight kilometres down that street before locating the vehicle that had been the subject of the information. It was pulled over on the side of the road. The keys were in the ignition, and the car engine was still running. The appellant was in the driver’s seat of that car. Police said that he was blinking and frequently slurring his words and had red bloodshot eyes. He was also argumentative with police and appeared to be nervous and was lying down on the seat at the time and, despite attempting to sit up, would resume the lying-down position.

This, of course, unexpectedly alerted police to the potential for him being affected by a substance. A breath test resulted in a zero reading, but the defendant – sorry – the appellant told police that he had consumed 10 Panadol tablets and two Panadeine tablets over the course of the day due to a toothache. He told police that he was driving home from Hervey Bay and admitted that he was not in a fit state to drive. He handed a box of what is referred to…

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 Garner v Commissioner of Police

Details

AGLC: Garner v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 223
Case: [2018] QDC 223
Decision Date: 14 June 2018 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Garner, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Garner pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol. He was fined and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 16 months. Garner argued that the disqualification period was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which needed to decide whether the disqualification period was excessive in the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's previous criminal history, and the sentencing principles outlined in relevant statutes and case law. The court also considered the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The court held that the disqualification period was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence and took into account the appellant's previous criminal history and the need to protect the public.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the disqualification period was appropriate in the circumstances of the case and did not amount to an error of law. The appellant's argument that the disqualification period was manifestly excessive was not successful. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and did not constitute an error of law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Garner v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 223
PARTIES:	JUSTIN LESLIE GARNER (appellant) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	19/17
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2018 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2018
JUDGE:	Farr SC DCJ
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Justices Act 1886 – section 222 – appeal against sentence – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of driving under the influence of liquor or a drug – where appellant was fined and disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for a period of 16 months - whether the period of disqualification imposed was manifestly excessive Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Queensland Police Service v Pacey [2010] QDC 240
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf J Geary for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent