Hunter v White - [2002] TASSC 72

[2002] TASSC 72

CITATION: Hunter v White [2002] TASSC 72

PARTIES:  HUNTER, Neil Peter
  v
  WHITE, Graeme Ross

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 15/2002
DELIVERED ON:  25 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  12 September 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates - Appeal from and control of magistrates - Tasmania - Motion to Review - The hearing - Review of sentence - Principles applicable - Totality and proportionality principles - Sentences of imprisonment and licence disqualification - Whether sentences manifestly excessive - Driver with bad record - Consideration of aggregate sentences.
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act1970 (Tas)
Wise v R [1965] Tas SR 196; Peck v Visser [1999] TASSC 38; Jarvis v Brown 120/1998, followed.
Aust Dig Magistrates [272]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  W G Tucker
             Respondent:  J P Ransom
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Grant Tucker
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment ID Number: [2002] TASSC 72
Number of paragraphs: 15

Serial No 72/2002
File No LCA 15/2002

NEIL PETER HUNTER v GRAEME ROSS WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COX CJ
25 September 2002

The applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to no less than 24 summary offences contained in eight complaints to a total period of imprisonment for three years, he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for nine years and two months with effect from his release from prison, and was fined a total of $1,560. In addition he was ordered to pay court costs in excess of $200 and levies under the Victims of Crime Compensation Act 1994, also in excess of $200. The penalties imposed in respect of each offence are set out in the following table in the column headed "Penalty".

Date of Offence

Charge

Breach of

Penalty

12/12/01 Exceed speed limit of 110kph in higher speed zone (126kph) reg7(2)(b)
Traffic (General and Local) Regulations 1956
3 demerit points
$110 fine

Drive whilst
disqualified s13(1)
Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 4 months' imprisonment
8 months' disqualification

14/01/02 Drive whilst
disqualified s19A(1)
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 4 months' imprisonment
(cumulative)
8 months' disqualification
(cumulative)

Negligent driving s(2)
Traffic Act 1925 12 months' disqualification
(cumulative)
$400 fine

Fail to comply with duties of a driver involved in a crash reg287(1) and (2)
Traffic (Road Rules)
Regulations 1999 6 months' disqualification
(cumulative)
$250 fine

15/01/02 Destroy or injure property s37(1)
Police Offences Act 1935 6 months' imprisonment
(cumulative)
Global sentence imposed for offences committed on 15/01/02

Loiter in or near a public place with intent to commit a crime s7(1)(b)
Police Offences Act 1935 Global sentence

State false name and address s55A(1)
Police Offences Act 1935 Global sentence

Burglary s244
Criminal Code 1924 Global sentence

Burglary s244
Criminal Code 1924 Global sentence

Burglary s244
Criminal Code 1924 Global sentence

30/01/02 Fail to comply with conditions of
Probation Order ss37(1)(d) and 42(1)(a)
Sentencing Act 1997 2 months' imprisonment
(concurrent)
Probation Orders revoked

Between 03/01/02 and 27/01/02
Fail to comply…

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 Hunter v White

Details

AGLC: Hunter v White [2002] TASSC 72
Case: [2002] TASSC 72
Decision Date: 25 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter v White [2002] TASSC 72 was an appeal by Neil Peter Hunter against his sentence imposed by a magistrate. Hunter had pleaded guilty to numerous summary offences, including driving while disqualified, exceeding speed limits, and damaging property. The magistrate sentenced Hunter to three years in prison, nine years and two months of disqualification from driving, and fines totaling $1,560. Hunter argued that the cumulative sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly considering the principle of totality which requires that the aggregate sentence not be disproportionate to the totality of the offending. The Supreme Court of Tasmania reviewed the sentence to determine if the magistrate had erred in imposing such a severe penalty.

The court considered Hunter's extensive criminal history, which included multiple convictions for driving offenses, theft, burglary, and other property-related crimes. Hunter had shown a persistent pattern of criminal behavior since 1988, demonstrating a total disregard for the law and court orders. The court acknowledged the severity of the sentence but noted that Hunter's actions posed a significant danger to other road users and property. The court also examined the principle of proportionality and whether the aggregate sentence was disproportionate to Hunter's offending, referencing previous cases such as Peck v Visser [1999] TASSC 38. In those cases, the courts had upheld lengthy sentences for persistent offenders. The court found that a three-year imprisonment sentence was not disproportionate to the gravity of Hunter's conduct.

Regarding the disqualification period, the court considered the principle that long periods of disqualification could be counterproductive and smacked of retribution. However, given Hunter's persistent and dangerous behavior, the court determined that a lengthy disqualification was justified to protect the public. The court concluded that a period of disqualification of nine years and two months was too long and reduced it to seven years from the date of Hunter's release from prison. The motion to review was otherwise dismissed, and the sentence remained largely unchanged.

Orders