HENDY v Police

The appellant, a woman with no prior convictions, appealed against her sentence for driving while disqualified, contrary to section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. She was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment, suspended on the condition of good behaviour for 12 months. The appeal raised questions about whether the magistrate correctly found the driving to be contumacious and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the magistrate erred in determining that her driving was contumacious and that the sentence was too harsh given the circumstances.

The court examined the definition of "contumacious" as established in Police v Cadd, which requires more than mere intention to drive while disqualified. It involves committing the offence with a total disregard for the disqualification and disobedience to the authority imposing it. The court considered the appellant's situation, where she drove to pick up her children due to a lack of alternative means of transport and her fear of public transport. The magistrate found that there were alternatives available, but the court noted the appellant's concern about leaving her children at school and her lack of family support in the area.

The court found that the magistrate erred in considering the driving to be contumacious given the circumstances. The magistrate had acknowledged the appellant's need to pick up her children and her fear of public transport, but still considered there were alternatives. The court set aside the magistrate's sentence and re-sentenced the appellant, taking into account the non-contumacious nature of her driving. The court did not consider the sentence to be manifestly excessive, given the appellant's need to address her fear of public transport and other issues through counselling. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside.