Maher v Banks

In the case of Maher v Banks, the applicant, Maher, sought to challenge the sentence imposed on Banks for the offence of driving while disqualified, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. Banks had been disqualified from driving for twelve months following convictions for motor vehicle stealing and driving while over the prescribed alcohol limit. Despite his disqualification, Banks drove again and was convicted and sentenced to one month's disqualification, which extended his existing term of disqualification. The penalty for a first offence of driving while disqualified is five penalty units or three months' imprisonment, or both, while the penalty for a second or subsequent offence is ten penalty units or six months’ imprisonment, or both. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. Banks had driven while disqualified despite being aware that his companion had consumed a significant amount of alcohol prior to the journey. Banks placed himself in a situation of relying on his companion for his return to New Norfolk and, upon discovering his companion's incapacity to drive safely, drove the car himself. The court found that no proper explanation was advanced for Banks' decision to drive while disqualified, and any characterisation of it as a responsible one was contrary to the evidence placed before the magistrate. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. The matter was remitted to another magistrate for sentence according to law.