Neylon v Kuzmanovic

[2006] QDC 15

[2006] QDC 015

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE TUTT

No 66 of 2005

ANGELA NEYLON	Appellant
and
NIKOLA KUZMANOVIC	Respondent
BEENLEIGH ..DATE 16/02/2006
ORDER

16022006 D.1 T13/PF(SPT) M/T BNL1/2006 (Tutt DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: This is the matter of an appeal by Angela Neylon,	1
appellant, and Nikola Kuzmanovic, respondent.
[1] This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 by Angela Neylon against a decision of the learned

10

Magistrate at Beenleigh on the 6th of June 2005, whereby the respondent was convicted on entering pleas of guilty to all of the following offences, namely:

(a) four offences of driving a motor vehicle whilst under

the influence of liquor in breach of section 79(1)(a) of

20

the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995

("T.O.R.U.M.");

(b) six offences of driving a motor vehicle whilst over

the general alcohol limit, that is where the respondent's

30

blood alcohol content exceeded .050 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood in breach of section 79(2) of T.O.R.U.M.; and

(c) seven breaches of a domestic violence order made at

40

Beenleigh on or about the 17th of December 2003 to
operate until 16 November 2005, pursuant to section
80(1)(a) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection

Act 1989.

50

[2] By way of penalty, the learned Magistrate sentenced the
respondent to a term of two months imprisonment for each of
the 10 offences under the TORUM Act and disqualified him from
16022006 D.1 T13/PF(SPT) M/T BNL1/2006 (Tutt DCJ) 2 ORDER 60

holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of two	1
years from the 6th of June 2005.
[3] In respect of the breaches of the domestic violence order, the respondent was also sentenced to two months

10

imprisonment for each offence, with all terms of imprisonment

to be served concurrently.

[4] In brief terms, the respondent was a 44 year old man of

European origin. He came to Australia in 1980. He worked in

20

Mt Isa for some years, then met his current estranged wife in
1993. At that time, his wife had a child of her own by

another union who was then aged nine years.

[5] There are two children of the respondent's marriage, born

30

in 1994 and 1996 respectively. The relationship between the respondent and his wife was an unhappy and violent one, with his being subject to his first domestic violence order in or about 1995.

40

[6] The marriage continued to be tumultuous with his wife
applying for orders through the Family Court and the

respondent being granted only limited access to his daughter.

[7] A further domestic violence order was made against him in

50

or about early December 2003 to operate until November 2005.

[8] For many years the respondent has had a serious problem
with the heavy consumption of alcohol, and his criminal and
16022006 D.1 T13/PF(SPT) M/T BNL1/2006 (Tutt DCJ) 3 ORDER 60

traffic history shows that he was first convicted in the	1
Gladstone Magistrates Court on the 17th of February 1984 for driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding the permissible blood alcohol level.

10

[9] Thereafter, he has had various miscellaneous convictions
for violent behaviour of varying degrees, though not of a

particularly serious nature.

[10] The numerous offences for which he was dealt with on the

20

6th of June 2005 at the Beenleigh Magistrates Court, commenced of the domestic violence order stem from his excessive consumption of alcohol caused by his anger and frustration in
in November 2003 and extended over a period of 16 months to

30

being denied access to his children. The only submission in respect of what might be termed his "drink/driving" offences before the Magistrate was that he developed a drinking habit over a period of years and had tried to address it through
counselling sessions at the Logan Central Community Health

40

Centre without success.

[11] He also apparently attended an anger management course,
but there was no report tendered from any Centre in respect of

his progress or application to any rehabilitative course which

50

might demonstrate a conscientious or genuine attempt on his
part to address his grossly anti-social behaviour.
16022006 D.1 T13/PF(SPT) M/T BNL1/2006 (Tutt DCJ) 4 ORDER 60

[12] It was submitted on behalf of the appellant at this	1
hearing, that the learned Magistrate placed too much weight on mitigating factors and not enough on the respondent's criminal and traffic history.

10

[13] Apart from the 18 offences including one unlicensed driving offence, dealt with on the 6th of June 2005, the respondent's traffic history shows that one month prior to his
sentence by the learned Magistrate, he was fined for a

speeding offence of exceeding the speed limit by more than 20

20

kilometres per hour; two speeding offences committed in 2004;
one in 2003; two driving under the influence offences, and one
speeding offence in 2002; one speeding offence in 2001; three
convictions for disqualified driving and driving whilst under

the influence of liquor and speeding in 1998; four other

30

offences in 1996 and one in 1995, with other offences dating

back to 1984.

[14] The appellant further submits that the learned Magistrate

placed insufficient weight on the nature of the offences

40

themselves, the number of offences and the time period over

which they were committed.

[15] Further, some of the offences were committed while

subject to notices to appear on bail in respect of other of

50

the offences. The driving offences involved 10 offences of
driving under the influence of alcohol, four of which involved
blood alcohol readings of over 0.15 percent.
16022006 D.1 T13/PF(SPT) M/T BNL1/2006 (Tutt DCJ) 5 ORDER 60

[16] It was further submitted that the offences of breaching	1
domestic violence orders were serious, given the number of them coupled with the fact that they involved threats to kill the aggrieved and her family. These threats took place during a Family Court proceeding which placed significant stress on

10

the aggrieved. The learned Magistrate commented that she
accepted that the aggrieved was genuinely concerned for her

safety on at least one occasion that these threats were made.

[17] It was further submitted that general deterrence is an

20

important feature in sentencing both driving offences
involving alcohol and also offences involving domestic
violence, and that little or no weight was given to this

factor in the sentence.

30

[18] Finally, the appellant submitted that a term of
imprisonment in the order of nine to 12 months would be

appropriate.

[19] It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the

40

learned Magistrate's decision was in accordance with proper
sentencing principles, and that she had properly assessed all

competing factors in reaching the decision.

[20] This Court's power in respect of an appeal under section

50

222 of the Justices Act is that the appeal is by way of
rehearing on the evidence given in the proceedings before the
Justices (see section 223 of the Justices Act 1886) and that
the Court has a wide discretion in the order it makes. (S.225)
16022006 D.1 T13/PF(SPT) M/T BNL1/2006 (Tutt DCJ) 6 ORDER 60

1

[21] The sentencing principles to be followed by our Courts in
dealing with offenders, are comprehensively set out in part 2
of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, particularly section

9(1) and (2) thereof.

10

[22] In this matter, I find that the learned Magistrate erred
in her sentencing discretion in imposing the sentences she did

on the respondent in the following manner:-

20

(a) She placed insufficient weight on the nature of the
offences where the respondent was convicted of four
"major", as I shall call them, and six "lesser" offences
under the TORUM Act, involving the driving of a motor

vehicle after the consumption of alcohol.

30

(b) She gave insufficient weight to the fact that the
respondent committed the four "major" offences within a
period of 16 months between November, 2003 and March,

2005, interspersed with the six "lesser" offences

40

involving drinking and driving during that same period,
some occurring within days of each other. It would be
difficult to find a more blatant and contemptuous

attitude to a person's obligation to uphold the law.

50

(c) She gave insufficient weight to the number, nature
and time within which the breaches of the domestic
violence order occurred and the detrimental effect which

such breaches imposed on the respondent's wife.

7 ORDER 60

16022006 D.1 T14/JJ(SPT) M/T BNL1-2/2006 (Tutt DCJ)

1

[23] While I do not accept that the respondent fell within
those provisions of section 79 of the TORUM Act, which made it
mandatory that he be required to serve a term of imprisonment

as part of his punishment, as from my reading of his history,

10

he had only been previously convicted twice of the "lesser" sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate, was manifestly inadequate and the appeal is therefore upheld and the order of
charge prior to his coming before the Court on the 16th of

20

the learned Magistrate set aside.

[24] I make the following further orders in this matter.

(a) In respect of each of the four offences of driving a

30

motor vehicle whilst under the influence of liquor in
breach of section 79 1(a) of the TORUM Act 1995, the
respondent is convicted of each offence and I order that
he be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine

months on each offence.

40

(b) In respect of the six offences of driving a motor vehicle while over the general alcohol limit, that is, where the respondent's blood alcohol content exceeded .05

milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the

50

respondent is convicted of each offence and I order that
he be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six

months in respect of each offence. I further order that

8 ORDER 60

16022006 D.1 T14/JJ(SPT) M/T BNL1-2/2006 (Tutt DCJ)

he be disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a	1
driver's licence.
(c) In respect of the seven breaches of a domestic violence order made at Beenleigh on or about the 17th of

10

December, 2003, to operate until the 16th November, 2005, pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act of 1989, the respondent is convicted of each of those breaches of the Act and I order that he be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of

20

each breach.

[24] I further order that all terms of imprisonment so imposed
above be served concurrently, and I further direct that

warrant be issued for the arrest of the respondent, Nikola

30

Kuzmanovic, to serve the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment imposed above.

…

40

[25] I make no order as to costs.

----

50

9 ORDER 60