Irving v Head

Case [2016] ACTSC 37


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Irving v Head

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 37

Hearing Date:

26 February 2016

DecisionDate:

23 March 2016

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.     The appeal is upheld.

2.     The convictions of Melissa Irving of driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol and failing to stop at a red light are confirmed.

3.     The sentences are set aside.

4.     For driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol, Melissa Irving is fined $750.

5.     For failing to stop at a red light, Melissa Irving is fined $350.

6.     Melissa Irving pay court costs of $75, a criminal injuries compensation levy of $50 and a victim’s service levy of $30.

7.     Melissa Irving pay the fines, costs and levies within one month from today.

8.     The period of disqualification be reduced to 2 years, less the 89 days during which she did not drive.

9. It be declared that the period of licence disqualification, taking into account the period under s 35 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1999 (ACT) begin today, 23 March 2016 and end on 25 September 2017, when Melissa Irving is entitled to obtain or hold a driver licence.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – appeal against sentence – licence disqualification – allowance for guilty plea – double punishment – totality – use offence as aggravating feature of another offence

CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – sentencing – re-sentence – driving with prescribed concentration of alcohol in breath – failing to stop at stop line at red light – reduction of default disqualification

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33, 33(1)(a), 33(1)(c), 33(1)(p), 35

Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 54A
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s, 216, Pt 3.10, Div 3.10.2
Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 4E, 8, 12, 19, 26, 32, 35
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 24, r 61B
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68D

Australian Road Rules, r 56(1)(a)
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 (ACT), s 73C, Pt 3A
Road Transport (Offences) Regulation 2005 (ACT), It 31.1, Pt 1.2, Sch 1

Cases Cited:

Application by the Attorney-General under section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment concerning the offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol under section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No 3 of 2002) (2004) 61 NSWLR 305

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58
Burow v Hoyer (2015) 292 FLR 325
Burow v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 61
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433
Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) (2010) 5 ACTLR 151
Goundar v Goddard (2010) 240 FLR 176
Hill v Wenham [2012] ACTSC 156
Hugg v Driessen (2012) 261 FLR 324
Kennedy v Egan [2011] ACTSC 163
Mill…

Continue reading Irving v Head

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Irving v Head [2016] ACTSC 37
Case
[2016] ACTSC 37
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melissa Irving, the appellant, appealed against her conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of the ACT. Irving was convicted of driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol and failing to stop at a stop line at a red light. The sentence included a fine and a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for three years. Irving appealed both the conviction and the sentence. She argued that the sentence was excessive, constituting double punishment, and that the length of the licence disqualification was unjust. She also contended that the magistrate had used the driving offence as an aggravating feature of another offence, which was impermissible.

The court considered the appeal on its merits, focusing on the fairness and proportionality of the sentence. It was noted that the magistrate had not provided any reasons for the sentence, and there was no evidence that the court had considered the totality principle. The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and unjust, and that the licence disqualification period was not justified. The court also found that the magistrate had erred in using the driving offence as an aggravating feature of the other offence.

The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were confirmed. The sentences were set aside, and new sentences were imposed. Irving was fined $750 for driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol and $350 for failing to stop at a red light. Additionally, she was ordered to pay court costs, a criminal injuries compensation levy, and a victim’s service levy. The licence disqualification period was reduced to two years, less the 89 days during which Irving did not drive. It was declared that the licence disqualification period would begin on 23 March 2016 and end on 25 September 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The convictions of Melissa Irving of driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol and failing to stop at a red light are confirmed.

3. The sentences are set aside.

4. For driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol, Melissa Irving is fined $750.

5. For failing to stop at a red light, Melissa Irving is fined $350.

6. Melissa Irving pay court costs of $75, a criminal injuries compensation levy of $50 and a victim’s service levy of $30.

7. Melissa Irving pay the fines, costs and levies within one month from today.

8. The period of disqualification be reduced to 2 years, less the 89 days during which she did not drive.

9. It be declared that the period of licence disqualification, taking into account the period under s 35 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1999 (ACT) begin today, 23 March 2016 and end on 25 September 2017, when Melissa Irving is entitled to obtain or hold a driver licence.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.