P v Te Pairi

[2008] NSWLC 17

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION:	P v Te Pairi [2008] NSWLC 17
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
PARTIES:	Police Te Pairi
FILE NUMBER:	H 32869053; H 185560792; H 61144001; H 33557279; H 34189846
PLACE OF HEARING:	Downing Centre
DATE OF DECISION:
MAGISTRATE:	Chief Magistrate G L Henson
CATCHWORDS:	Dangerous Driving causing grievous bodily harm – prescribed concentration of alcohol – drive whilst disqualified – drive unregistered – habitual traffic offender declaration
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 Section 52A(3)(a) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 Sections 9(3)(a) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 Section 25A(1)(a), (3)(a) Motor vehicles Taxation Act 1988 Section 9(1)(a) Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 Section 7(1) Australian Road Rules Section 40, 61(1)
CASES CITED:	R –V- Bimahendali (1999) 109 ACR 355 R –v- Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430 R-v- Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115 R –v- Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 R –v- MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381 R –v- Poon 56 NSWLR 284 R –v- Price [2004] NSWCCA 186 R –v- Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 Adams –v- R [2008] HCA 15 Johnson –v- The Queen [2004] 78 ALJR 616 Postiglione –v- The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Rosenthal –v- R [2008] NSWCCA 149
TEXTS CITED:
REPRESENTATION:
ORDERS:

1) The offender is to be sentenced for 5 separate episodes of offending behaviour involving 15 separate offences. The offending behaviour occurred over an 11-month period during the second half of 2007 and the first half of 2008. Much of the offending behaviour took place at a time when the offender was on bail facing earlier charges. The offender has entered a plea of guilty to each of the 15 charges. There is a measure of utilitarian value in the pleas

2) The serious nature of some of the offences together with the offender’s prior antecedents warranted the preparation of a pre sentence report by the Probation and Parole Service. The report was sought on 27th March 2008. A report provided by that service and dated 10th June 2008 disclosed an unexplained failure on the part of the offender to participate in an assessment.

3) The offender was reminded of the importance of such an assessment in determining whether there were viable alternatives to imprisonment. He subsequently decided to engage himself in the process of providing information to Probation and Parole sufficient to enable the preparation of a report for the Court. An adjournment was afforded to allow the offender a second chance at being involved in the preparation of a pre sentence report. Between the date of that adjournment and the completion of the pre sentence report he was arrested and charged with further offending.

4) The offending is for like conduct to that for which he was awaiting sentence. With the customary clarity that hindsight brings the generosity of the court in extending the courtesy of a second chance to explore the alternatives to imprisonment may have been an unwise course to adopt. This is particularly so for the offender.

5) Nonetheless the contents of…