Legal Research
Cases
Neves v Rogers

Neves v Rogers

Case [2013] WASC 440 9 December 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: NEVES -v- ROGERS [2013] WASC 440

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 3 DECEMBER 2013

DELIVERED : 3 DECEMBER 2013

PUBLISHED : 9 DECEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1122 of 2013

BETWEEN: NELIO JOSE NEVES
Appellant
AND
PETER EDWARD ROGERS
First Respondent
MARK JOHN OVERSBY
Second Respondent
JASON STEPHEN BULL
Third Respondent

FILE NO/S :SJA 1135 of 2013

BETWEEN :NELIO JOSE NEVES
Appellant
AND
JASON STEPHEN BULL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R B LAWRENCE
File No  :FR 10781 of 2012, FR 146 of 2013, FR 3745 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law and sentencing - Driving without a licence - Driving with licence that has ceased - Repeat offender - Errors in sentencing remarks - Appropriate sentence

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49

Result:

Appeal upheld
Appellant resentenced

Category: D

Representation:

SJA 1122 of 2013

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr A J Robson
First Respondent           :     Ms H C Richardson
Second Respondent       :     Ms H C Richardson
Third Respondent         :     Ms H C Richardson

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Legal Aid (WA)
First Respondent           :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent       :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Third Respondent         :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

SJA 1135 of 2013

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A J Robson
Respondent: Ms H C Richardson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bell v Wesley [2007] WASC 264
Bowden v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 118; (2013) 45 WAR 168
Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321
Griekspoor v Scott [2000] WASCA 419; (2000) 23 WAR 530
Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65
Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Palmer v Dwyer [2010] WASC 28
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129
Vince v Martyn [2013] WASC 60
Yuksel v Marchesani [2011] WASC 57

BEECH J: On 10 September 2013, in the Fremantle Magistrates Court, the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of six driving offences and one related offence. Three of the offences were of driving without a licence. The appellant was sentenced to a total term of 12 months and 1 day imprisonment, to be served immediately.
The appellant appeals against his sentence. He also appeals against one of his convictions. At the hearing of the appeals, the respondents conceded the appeal against conviction and two of the grounds of appeal against sentence.
At the hearing, I upheld the appeals and resentenced the appellant to a total effective term of 7 months. These are my reasons for doing so.

The charges

The appellant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of the following offences:
(1)on 7 September 2012 driving an unlicensed vehicle in contravention of s 15(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) ($200 fine);
(2)on…

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 Neves v Rogers

Details

AGLC: Neves v Rogers [2013] WASC 440
Case: [2013] WASC 440
Decision Date: 9 DECEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Neves v Rogers, the defendant, Neves, appealed against his conviction for driving a motor vehicle without a valid licence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Neves had previously been convicted of the same offence and was caught driving again with a licence that had been cancelled. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the errors in the sentencing remarks and whether the court had adequately considered the repeat nature of the offence.

The court first examined the sentencing remarks made by the trial judge. It was noted that the judge had made errors in stating that Neves had been convicted of the same offence previously, which was not entirely accurate. The court considered whether these errors impacted the overall fairness and appropriateness of the sentence. It was held that while the errors were significant, they did not fundamentally undermine the sentence. The court then turned to the repeat nature of the offence and the need to deter such conduct. It was determined that Neves' history of driving without a valid licence warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of his repeated breaches of the law.

Having considered these issues, the court concluded that while the sentencing remarks contained errors, the sentence imposed was overall appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases of repeat offending and acknowledged that Neves' actions posed a risk to public safety. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court ordered that the sentence previously imposed by the trial judge be confirmed and that Neves serve the sentence as determined.

Orders