Gibson v Jones

Gibson v Jones was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent, Jones, appealed against his sentence. The appeal focused on the application of a mandatory minimum term of license disqualification, which was to run from the date of the finding of guilt. Jones argued that the mandatory minimum term should be reduced by the period of time his license was suspended under section 29AAN of the relevant Act. However, as there was no suspension under section 29AAN, Jones was not permitted to drive as a condition of his bail. The court considered whether it had the power to backdate the license disqualification to the date bail was granted, and whether the offence was a second or subsequent offence. Additionally, the court examined whether it had erred in imposing an aggregate sentence of imprisonment where one of the offences carried only a fine.

The court addressed the legal issues by first considering the construction of section 28(2)(b) of the Act, which defines when an offence is considered a second or subsequent offence. The court concluded that an offence under section 28(1)(a) is only a second or subsequent offence if the presence of the prohibited drug in the person’s body was confirmed by a blood test. In this case, the court assumed that the two previous convictions on 30 September 2019 were offences against section 28(1)(a) in which the presence of the prohibited drug in Jones’ body was confirmed by a blood test. Therefore, count 1 was considered a "subsequent offence" within the meaning of section 28(4). The court also addressed the issue of backdating the license disqualification and concluded that it did not have the power to do so.

The court found that the mandatory minimum term of license disqualification should not be reduced by the period of time Jones' license was suspended under section 29AAN. Since there was no suspension under section 29AAN, the court could not backdate the license disqualification to the date bail was granted. The court also determined that it had not erred in imposing an aggregate sentence of imprisonment where one of the offences carried only a fine. The court considered the overall circumstances of the case and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court clarified that the mandatory minimum term of license disqualification should not be reduced and could not be backdated, and that the imposition of an aggregate sentence of imprisonment where one of the offences carried only a fine was appropriate.