Millington v Lane - [2014] TASSC 7

[2014] TASSC 7

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Millington v Lane [2014] TASSC 7

PARTIES:  MILLINGTON, Adrian Doran
  v
  LANE, Richard

FILE NO:  935/2013
DELIVERED ON:  26 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  24 February 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of sentence – Whether 15 month period of disqualification imposed manifestly excessive.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Chopping
             Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Steven Chopping
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 7
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 7/2014
File No 935/2013

ADRIAN DORAN MILLINGTON v RICHARD LANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

26 February 2014

Adrian Millington pleaded guilty to an offence of driving whilst disqualified, contrary to s19A of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970. He was sentenced by Magistrate S Cooper on 22 August 2013 to 70 hours of community service and a period of licence disqualification of 15 months. He applies to this Court to review his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. In arguing this ground the applicant gives particular attention to the length of the period of driving disqualification.
On 29 August 2012 at about midday the applicant was observed by police officers getting into the driver's seat of his motor vehicle. It was parked in Derwent Park Road across the road from Cravings Takeaway store. He was a real estate salesman and had driven to meet a potential purchaser to inspect a property. He was returning to his workplace when he stopped at the shop. There was nothing adverse about his driving which drew the attention of the police. He was not intercepted at that time. He was later spoken to by police officers and was co-operative. The applicant was disqualified from driving. The incident of driving was towards the end of a disqualification period of 18 months.
Some other facts of the offence were revealed during the plea in mitigation, although the details remained scant. The distance of driving was "not a long trip". Because of the nature of his work commitments he had employed a person, his cousin, to drive him for work purposes, but on the day of the offence that person was not available. The applicant was subject to financial pressure; it was said for the applicant in mitigation that his marriage had failed, and "he was having problems coping with financial matters and was suffering a great deal of stress in his employment." The applicant made an out of character decision on the spur of the moment caused by the stressors he was facing at the time. The applicant made the decision to drive, hoping he might sell the property.
It is noted that, as submitted for the applicant, there was an absence of aggravating aspects; no suggestion he was intoxicated while driving or that his manner of driving posed a danger to others.…

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 Millington v Lane

Details

AGLC: Millington v Lane [2014] TASSC 7
Case: [2014] TASSC 7
Decision Date: 26 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Millington v Lane involved an appeal from the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, where the defendant sought a review of their sentence. The dispute centred on the 15-month period of disqualification imposed by the Magistrates Court for driving under the influence of alcohol, which the defendant argued was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was disproportionate or unjust in the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the court included whether the 15-month disqualification period was a proper exercise of the court's discretion, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The defendant contended that the sentence was disproportionate given the nature of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing and the extent to which the Magistrates Court had properly exercised its discretion in imposing the sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the Magistrates Court's exercise of discretion, ultimately concluding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the Magistrates Court had appropriately weighed the relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's culpability, in arriving at the sentence. The court held that the 15-month disqualification period was a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was upheld. The defendant was to remain subject to the 15-month disqualification period as determined by the Magistrates Court.

Orders