Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :MAGISTRATE M E PONTIFEX
File No :BS 854 of 2010, BS 855 of 2010, BS 856 of 2010, BS 857 of 2010
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Driving under the influence of alcohol - Driving while disentitled - Driving unlicensed vehicle - Driving vehicle with false number plates - Sentences of 12 and 6 months immediate imprisonment for DUI and driving while disentitled offences respectively - Whether error in fact or in law in approach to whether or not to suspend sentences of imprisonment - Whether immediate sentence of imprisonment of 12 months for DUI offence manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts
[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 Patterson v Cutler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316
Case
[2010] WASC 316
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Patterson v Cutler, the appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while disentitled, driving an unlicensed vehicle, and driving a vehicle with false number plates. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months immediate imprisonment for the DUI offence and 6 months immediate imprisonment for the driving while disentitled offence. The appellant appealed the sentences, arguing that the sentences of immediate imprisonment were manifestly excessive and that there was an error in the approach to whether or not to suspend the sentences of imprisonment.
The court was required to determine whether there was an error in fact or in law in the approach to whether or not to suspend the sentences of imprisonment, and whether the immediate sentence of imprisonment of 12 months for the DUI offence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court held that there was no error in fact or in law in the approach to whether or not to suspend the sentences of imprisonment. The court also held that the immediate sentence of imprisonment of 12 months for the DUI offence was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the appellant and others from driving under the influence of alcohol.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentences of 12 and 6 months immediate imprisonment for the DUI and driving while disentitled offences respectively. The court noted that the appellant had a previous conviction for a similar offence, and that the offences were committed while the appellant was already on parole for another offence. The court also noted that the appellant had shown a disregard for the law and for the safety of other road users. The court held that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.