Hales v Knight - [2001] NTSC 58

Hales v Knight [2001] NTSC 58
PARTIES:HALES, PETER WILLIAM
v

KNIGHT, SHANE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 34 of 2001 (20014713)
DELIVERED:  17 July 2001
HEARING DATES:  20 June and 13 July 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I Rowbottam
Respondent:  M Carter
Solicitors:
Appellant:Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  Withnall Maley and Co
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  ril0111
Number of pages:  8

ril0111
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Hales v Knight [2001] NTSC 58
No. JA34 of 2001 (20014713)
IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:

PETER WILLIAM HALES

Appellant

AND:

SHANE KNIGHT

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 July 2001)

This is a Crown appeal against sentences imposed upon the respondent in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 24 May 2001.
The respondent pleaded guilty to six offences against the Traffic Act and two against the Misuse of Drugs Act. All of the offences occurred in the early hours of the morning of Sunday 3 September 2000. At that time the respondent was observed by police driving a Mitsubishi Colt at speed along Lee Point Road. Police pursued the vehicle. The respondent did not stop but rather sped up in order to evade police. A chase ensued along various streets in the area. The pursuit ended when the vehicle crashed into a clump of palm trees.
The respondent was subsequently shown to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.107 percent. He was at the time a disqualified driver having been disqualified on 26 April 2000 for a period of seven months. Disqualification followed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.126 percent. The vehicle he was driving was unregistered and uninsured. The registration had expired on 28 August 2000.
Counsel who appeared for the respondent at the hearing told the learned Magistrate that his client had been drinking at a friend’s house and that he accepted that “he had way too much to drink”. The respondent said his driving was an act of stupidity and that he regretted the offending. No other explanation for his conduct was provided to the Court.
At the time of his arrest the respondent was found to have amphetamines in his possession and also a small bag of cannabis plant material. The Court was informed that he had no recollection of these items but accepted that they were in his possession. It was not suggested that he was under the influence of either drug when he drove as he did.
The Court was told that the respondent was aged 22 years. He had completed year 10 at school. He had been engaged in full time employment until June 2000 when he sustained an injury to both of his…

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 Hales v Knight

Details

AGLC: Hales v Knight [2001] NTSC 58
Case: [2001] NTSC 58
Decision Date: 17 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hales v Knight, the Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction against Shane Knight, who pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle, and drug possession. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, exercising its Territory jurisdiction, reviewed the appeal to determine if the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The respondent's dangerous driving, which involved evading police at high speeds and recklessly through Darwin's suburbs, was deemed particularly egregious given his prior driving offenses and the risks posed to the public and police. The Crown argued that the $400 fine and 9-month licence disqualification imposed for the dangerous driving charge were manifestly inadequate. The court agreed, noting that the offence warranted imprisonment and found the sentence imposed to be manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed, and the court sentenced Knight to a 3-month imprisonment term for the dangerous driving charge, which would run concurrently with the sentence for driving while disqualified, and be suspended from June 24, 2001. The sentences for the other charges were upheld.

The court addressed the appeal, focusing on the sentence for count 3, the charge of dangerous driving. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the severity of the dangerous driving, the respondent's prior criminal history, and the principles of personal and general deterrence. The court found the original sentence inadequate and substituted a 3-month imprisonment term, which would run concurrently with the term for driving while disqualified. The new sentence would start on May 24, 2001, and be suspended from June 24, 2001. The court also confirmed the sentences for the other charges, emphasizing the importance of deterrence and the need to address the respondent's repeated disregard for traffic laws.

Orders