Paterson v Steer - [2000] WASCA 250

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: PATERSON -v- STEER [2000] WASCA 250

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 1 SEPTEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1227 of 1999

BETWEEN: PETA PATERSON
Appellant
AND
BRADLEY ANDREW STEER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - First offence for drink driving - Whether three times minimum disqualification and 1.5 times minimum fine warranted - No prior convictions of appellant - Woman of mature age - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902, s 199(1)(g), s 219

Official Prosecutions (Defendants Costs) Act 1973, s 5(2)
Road Traffic Act1974, s 63(1)

Road Traffic Code

Result:

Appeal allowed
Fine and disqualification of licence imposed by Justice set aside
Fine of $800 and disqualification of 9 months substituted

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr B D Meertens
Respondent: Ms L P Roche

Solicitors:

Appellant: Lane Buck & Higgins
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Robson v Carter, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallace J); Library No 4511; 19 May 1982

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Pingelly that on 18 November 1999 she drove a motor vehicle on a road whilst under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, contrary to the provisions of s 63(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974. The statement of material facts which was served upon the appellant revealed that the offence occurred at about 9.50pm on 18 November 1999 when she drove a Holden Barina on Review Street, Pingelly. She was stopped for a random breath test and it was ascertained that she had consumed alcohol. She was conveyed to the Pingelly Police Station where a breath analysis test gave a reading of .178 per cent which was calculated to have been 0.170 per cent at the time of the occurrence.
The appellant came before a Justice of the Peace in the Pingelly Court of Petty Sessions on 23 November when she pleaded guilty to the offence. After hearing the statement of material facts the Justice asked the appellant whether she had anything to say, in response to which she said "I was stupid and shouldn't have done it" or words to that effect. The Justice then said to her "OK, you are going to get the book … 18 months and $1200 plus costs".
On 18 January 2000, Templeman J gave the appellant leave to appeal the whole of the decision of the Justice, the grounds being that in all the circumstances the sentence was harsh and oppressive and the Justice failed to take into account that the appellant had no prior convictions. The latter fact was established on the hearing of the appeal before me by production of a certified copy of the appellant's record which revealed that apart from the conviction recorded in the Court of Petty Sessions at Pingelly on 23 November…

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 Paterson v Steer

Details

AGLC: Paterson v Steer [2000] WASCA 250
Case: [2000] WASCA 250
Decision Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, Steer, following a conviction for drink driving. The sentencing judge imposed a three times minimum disqualification period and a 1.5 times minimum fine. The appeal was heard by the District Court of New South Wales, which found in favour of the appellant, Paterson. The respondent, Steer, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was dismissed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court considered the appellant's lack of prior convictions, her age, and the fact that this was her first offence. The court also noted the appellant's remorse and her decision to turn her life around after the incident. The court was required to weigh these factors against the need to deter others from committing similar offences.

The court found that the sentence imposed was too severe, given the appellant's circumstances. The court noted that while drink driving is a serious offence, the sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The court found that the appellant's remorse and decision to turn her life around were significant mitigating factors. The court also noted that the appellant had no prior convictions and was of mature age. The court concluded that a three times minimum disqualification period and a 1.5 times minimum fine were excessive in the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders