Nunn v Stocks - [2001] TASSC 52

[2001] TASSC 52

CITATION: Nunn v Stocks; McDonald v Stocks [2001] TASSC 52

PARTIES: NUNN, Adrian
v

STOCKS, Anthony John
McDONALD, Scott Raymond
v
STOCKS, Anthony John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 2/2001

LCA 3/2001

DELIVERED ON:  1 May 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  1 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

Edited edition of reasons for judgment delivered orally

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law - Offences - Particular offences - Alcohol and drug related offences - Tasmania - Other offences - Driving with alcohol present in body - Driving whilst disqualified - Sentencing.

Aust Dig Traffic Law [80]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicants:  F C Neasey
           Respondent:  R J Blissenden
Solicitors:
           Applicants:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Respondent:  Avery Keal

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 52
Number of Paragraphs: 14

Serial No 52/2001
File Nos LCA 2/2001
LCA 3/2001

ADRIAN NUNN v ANTHONY JOHN STOCKS
SCOTT RAYMOND McDONALD v ANTHONY JOHN STOCKS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

(DELIVERED ORALLY) 1 May 2001

There are two motions to review before the Court relating to the same respondent. They concern two complaints which were filed in the Magistrates Court at Hobart. Each complaint contained a number of charges, including one charge of driving with alcohol in the respondent's body contrary to the Road Safety (Alcohol & Drugs) Act 1970 ("the Act"), s6(2), and a charge of driving while disqualified contrary to the Act, s19A. Both complaints were dealt with by the same magistrate on the same day. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment in relation to each of those charges. By the motions to review, the applicants are contending that the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him were manifestly inadequate.

The first complaint relates to an incident on 1 January 2000 when the respondent was driving and was stopped for a random breath test. A blood alcohol reading of 0.158 per cent was obtained. In respect of that complaint, the learned magistrate sentenced him to five months' imprisonment on the s6(2) charge, and a cumulative term of one month's imprisonment on the charge of driving while disqualified. The second incident concerned driving by the respondent at New Norfolk on 6 November 2000. On that occasion, a blood alcohol reading of 0.222 per cent was obtained. In respect of that incident, the learned magistrate sentenced the respondent to seven months' imprisonment, three months of which were suspended, on the s6(2) charge. That was cumulative with the other sentences. He also sentenced him to one month's imprisonment, cumulatively, on the charge of driving while disqualified. The result, therefore, was that in total the respondent was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment, of which three months were suspended.

The respondent has one of the worst records of drink driving offences and offences of driving while disqualified that I have ever seen. From 1974 onwards, he has had a multiplicity of drink driving convictions, and a great many of those convictions have involved high readings, though I think none as high as the…

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 Nunn v Stocks

Details

AGLC: Nunn v Stocks [2001] TASSC 52
Case: [2001] TASSC 52
Decision Date: 1 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Nunn v Stocks, the applicants, Adrian Nunn and Scott Raymond McDonald, brought motions to review the sentences imposed on Anthony John Stocks by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. Stocks was convicted of driving with alcohol in his body and driving while disqualified. The applicants argued that the sentences, totaling 14 months imprisonment with three months suspended, were manifestly inadequate. The Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Blow J, considered the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's extensive history of similar convictions, and the legislative intent behind the penalties for such offences.

The court examined the principle of totality in sentencing, which requires that the aggregate sentence be reviewed to ensure it is just and appropriate. While acknowledging the wide discretion afforded to sentencing magistrates, the court noted the significance of prosecution appeals, which should be reserved for matters of principle to ensure consistency in sentencing standards. The court also referenced several cases that emphasised the need for severe penalties to act as deterrents for persistent offenders. Ultimately, the court determined that while the sentences were lenient, they fell within the bounds of the magistrate's discretion and did not constitute manifest inadequacy.

Consequently, the motions to review were dismissed, but the court made it clear that Stocks should not expect lenient treatment in the future for similar offences.

Orders