Heineman v Bradley - [2011] NTSC 105

Heineman v Bradley [2011] NTSC 105
PARTIES: HEINEMAN, Stuart Dan George

v
BRADLEY, Sandi-Lee

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   JA 15 of 2011 (21037291)
DELIVERED:   19 December 2011
HEARING DATE:   21 October 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   BARR J
APPEAL FROM:   HANNAM CSM
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – Sentencing – Alcohol Court Act 2006 – alcohol intervention order – whether the imposition of the maximum alcohol intervention order of 12 months was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
APPEAL – Sentencing – manifest excess – whether the imposition of 6 month term of imprisonment as a component of the alcohol intervention order was manifestly excessive.
Alcohol Court Act 2006 s 20(1), s 20(2), s 40
Traffic Act s 22(1)
Miller v Burgoyne [2004] NTSC 47, followed

Bakos v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 5; Cranssen v R (1936) 55 CLR 509; Gokel v Hammond [2001] NTSC 9; Hales v Garbe [2000] NTSC 49; Hales v Knight [2001] NTSC 58; R v Lange [2007] NTCCA 3; Mace v Hales [2002] NTSC 15; Midjumbani v Moore [2009] NTSCF 27; Pryce v Foster (1986) 3 MVR 321, considered
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:   A Elliott
Respondent:   L Brown
Solicitors:
Appellant:   I Rowbottam
Respondent:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   Bar1115
Number of pages:   13

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Heineman v Bradley [2011] NTSC 105

No. JA 15 of 2011 (21037291)
BETWEEN:

STUART DAN GEORGE HEINEMAN

Appellant:

AND:

SANDI-LEE BRADLEY

Respondent:

CORAM: BARR J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 19 December 2011)
Appeal against severity of sentence

On 7 November 2010 at 1:25 pm the appellant was driving his station wagon along McMillans Road Malak when he was detected travelling at 93km per hour by a police radar. The speed limit for the area was 80km per hour.
Police stopped the appellant and he was subjected to a roadside breath test which returned a positive result. He was arrested and a subsequent breath analysis returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.126%. The appellant told police officers at the time of his apprehension that he had been drinking heavily the previous night and had stopped drinking at approximately 4:15 am, some nine hours prior to his arrest.
On 10 February 2011 the appellant appeared in the Darwin Court of Summary Jurisdiction charged with exceeding the speed limit contrary to Rule 20 of the Traffic Regulations and driving with a medium range blood alcohol content (0.126%) contrary to s 22(1) of the Traffic Act.
This was not the appellant’s first appearance in court for drink driving matters.
On 16 November 2006 the appellant was disqualified for driving for six months after a breath analysis on 14 September 2006 returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.98%. The appellant was also driving in excess of the speed limit.
On 25 January 2009 the appellant drove with a…

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 Heineman v Bradley

Details

AGLC: Heineman v Bradley [2011] NTSC 105
Case: [2011] NTSC 105
Decision Date: 19/12/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Heineman v Bradley, the appeal was lodged against a sentence imposed under the Alcohol Intervention Order provisions of the Alcohol Court Act 2006. The appellant, Heineman, challenged both the length of an alcohol intervention order and the custodial component of that order. The primary judge had imposed a 12-month alcohol intervention order, including a six-month term of imprisonment. The appellant argued that both the length of the order and the custodial component were manifestly excessive.

The legal issues central to this appeal were whether the imposition of the maximum alcohol intervention order of 12 months was manifestly excessive and whether the inclusion of a six-month term of imprisonment was similarly excessive. The appellant contended that the court had failed to consider relevant mitigating factors and had thus imposed a sentence that was manifestly disproportionate to the offending. The court was required to determine if the sentence imposed by the primary judge fell outside the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed, thereby constituting a manifest excess.

The court thoroughly examined the sentencing principles applicable under the Alcohol Court Act 2006, including the need for appropriate deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the relevant statutory objectives and the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the sentence, including both the length of the alcohol intervention order and the custodial component, was not manifestly excessive. The imposition of the maximum alcohol intervention order was deemed necessary to achieve the statutory objectives of the Act, particularly given the appellant's history of alcohol-related offending. The court also found that the inclusion of a six-month term of imprisonment was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and the need for specific deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing the objectives of the Alcohol Intervention Order provisions with the individual circumstances of the offender. The court found that the primary judge's sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes, and thus, not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The second ground of appeal must therefore fail. Conclusion The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.