Parker v Gleeson - [1991] TASSC 82

Serial No 66/1991
List "A"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Parker v Gleeson [1991] TASSC 82; A66/1991

PARTIES:  PARKER
  v
  GLEESON

FILE NO/S: LCA 85/1991

LCA 86/1991

DELIVERED ON: 30 August 1991
JUDGMENT OF: Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Vehicles and Traffic — Offences — Dangerous driving — Sentence — Imprisonment — Diminished responsibility by reason of mental illness — Suspended sentence — Period of licence disqualification increased.

Judgment Number: A66/1991
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 66/1991
List "A"
File No LCA 85/1991
LCA 86/1991

PARKER v GLEESON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

30 August 1991

On 11 June 1991, in a court of petty sessions held at Hobart, the respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to the Traffic Act 1925, s.32(1). On 12 July 1991 the learned magistrate made the following orders on each complaint (not correctly recorded by the formal record of the court):

1Five months' imprisonment.
2The execution of the whole of the sentence to be suspended upon condition that the defendant be of good behaviour for 18 months.
3A probation order for the same period of 18 months.
4The probation order to contain a provision:
(a)that the defendant submit to the supervision of a probation officer during the period of the order, and
(b)that during this period, the defendant submit to such medical or psychiatric treatment as might reasonably be directed by a probation officer.

5That the defendant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for eight months.

The learned magistrate ordered that the sentences of imprisonment be served cumulatively and, although the transcript does not record that he made a similar order with respect to the periods of licence suspension, the court record indicates that he did so and, on the hearing of the motion to review, counsel were agreed that he did so order.

The applicant has moved this Court to review those orders. It was agreed that both motions to review should be heard together. The grounds relied upon were as follows:

"1The learned magistrate erred in fact and/or in law in wholly suspending the said prison sentence.
2The learned magistrate erred in fact and/or in law in that the disqualification imposed was manifestly inadequate in all circumstances [sic].
3The learned magistrate erred in fact in finding that the respondent was less responsible for his actions than the ordinary person.
4The learned magistrate erred in fact and/or in law in placing too much weight on the comments on passing sentence of the Chief Justice in The Queen v Wall."

In the court below there was no dispute over the facts put to the learned magistrate by the prosecutor. The first offence was committed on 2 April 1991. At about 10.40 that evening the police were called to the Brooker Hotel in Hobart. There they observed the respondent dressed only in jeans. When he saw the police the respondent ran out of the hotel and disappeared. Police officers…

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 Parker v Gleeson

Details

AGLC: Parker v Gleeson [1991] TASSC 82
Case: [1991] TASSC 82
Decision Date: 30 August 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Parker, has moved to review orders made by a magistrate sentencing the respondent, Gleeson, to five months' imprisonment on each of two charges of dangerous driving. The sentences were suspended upon conditions and Gleeson was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for eight months. The orders of imprisonment were suspended on the basis that Gleeson was suffering from a mental illness which impaired his self-control and judgment, and there was a reasonable prospect that he would submit to medical treatment to avoid a recurrence of the illness. Gleeson's licence was disqualified for eight months. The applicant argued the sentences should not have been suspended and that the period of licence disqualification was manifestly inadequate. The court found that the magistrate was entitled to take into account Gleeson's mental illness as a mitigating factor and to suspend the sentences, but the period of licence disqualification was manifestly inadequate. Gleeson was ordered to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 12 months on the first offence and for three years on the second offence, served cumulatively.

Orders