Peter James Brettell v Coral-Lee Friebel
[2022] ACTMC 21
•26 September 2022
MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Peter James Brettell v Coral-Lee Friebel | |
Citation: | [2022] ACTMC 21 | |
Hearing Date(s): | 29 August 2022 | |
DecisionDate: | 26 September | |
Before: | Magistrate Stewart | |
Catchwords: . | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated Dangerous Driving – property damage by motor vehicle - risk to police – risk to public – intensive corrections order | |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 403(1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 116(3) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7,10, 29, 80(1) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7(1) Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1977 (ACT) s 20(1) Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT) s 22 Road transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s31(1) | |
Cases Cited: |
| |
Representation: | Solicitors Ms Pitney (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr E Chen (Legal Aid) | |
Charge Number(s): | CC 2021/6028, CC 2022/6030, CC 2022/3058, CC 2022/3061, CC 2022/8097, CC 2022/7426. |
MAGISTRATE STEWART:
Introduction:
The offender Coral-Lee Friebel is to be sentenced for the following offences that occurred on 30 March 2022:
(a) One count of damage property over $1000 contrary to s403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2022/6030). On conviction, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, 10 years imprisonment or both. The offender elected for summary disposal of the matter, bringing the maximum sentencing jurisdiction of this Court to five years imprisonment pursuant to s375 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The defendant pleaded not guilty to this charge on 23 June 2022 however it was found proved by me on 29 August 2022.
(b) One count, as a repeat offender, of aggravated furious/reckless and dangerous driving contrary to s7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2022/3058). On conviction, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, 5 years imprisonment or both, noting that this is an aggravated offence as per s7A(1) of the same act. There has also been an election by the offender for summary disposal of this charge. A plea of guilty was indicated to this charge on the seventh mention and formally entered on the eighth mention before the Court on 9 August 2022.
(c) One count of destroy/damage property not exceeding $5000 contrary to s116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2022/7426). On conviction, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, 2 years imprisonment or both. The offender pleaded guilty to this offence on the second occasion being 9 August 2022.
(d) One count, as a repeat offender, of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid contrary to s20(1) of the Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1977 (ACT) (CC2022/8097). On conviction the maximum penalty for this offence is 25 penalty units, 3 months imprisonment or both. The offender pleaded guilty on the first occasion after the conclusion of a voire dire on 9 August 2022.
(e) One count of using a vehicle with a numberplate attached that was not properly issued contrary to s22(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2022/3061). On conviction, the maximum penalty for this offence is 20 penalty units. The offender pleaded guilty to this offence on the ninth occasion, on the 29 August 2022.
(f) One count of driving while unlicensed contrary to s31(1) Road transport
(Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2022/6028). On conviction, the maximum penalty for this offence is 20 penalty units. The offender pleaded guilty to this offence on the first occasion being 23 June 2022.
Facts
The facts are as follows:
At about 4:10 am on Wednesday 30 March 2022, police located a white Holden Colorado dual cab utility bearing NSW license plates DCM78W in the drive-through of the Molongolo McDonalds in Weston in the ACT. Police conducted checks on the number plate which indicated it belonged to a single cab Holden Colorado. Police drove to the exit of the McDonalds drive-through and parked in front of the Holden Colorado.
Police then heard the vehicle’s transmission changing and the engine revving. Police activated their emergency lights and indicated for the vehicle to stop. The vehicle reversed back down the drive-through and police began chasing the vehicle on foot.
Police resources happened to be on the other end of the drive-through, they successfully deployed a tire deflation device for the Holden Colorado, the vehicle continued to reverse after one of its tyres was punctured before colliding with a parked McDonalds delivery truck (this is the offence of damage property over $1000 in value CC2022/6030).
The vehicle then drove forward back into drive through again. Attempts were made to smash the driver’s window by an officer. The vehicle managed to pass between the police vehicle parked at the end of the drive-through and the retaining wall of the drive-through before accelerating into an open car park. Officers had to move behind their vehicle for their safety.
Police observed the Colorado turn left at full wheel lock whilst still accelerating. The wheels of the vehicle began squealing as the vehicle lost traction before colliding head on into a petrol bowser at the adjoining Ampol Service Station (This is the offence of damage property not exceeding $5000 CC2022/7426 and the whole of the driving is the basis of the offence of aggravated furious, reckless and dangerous driving CC2022/3058).
Police arrived at the vehicle on foot moments after the collision. The offender was seated in the driver’s seat of the crashed vehicle. The offender opened the door and attempted to exit the vehicle.
Once away from the hazard created by the damaged petrol bower, police asked the offender for her name, she stated her name was Coral-Lee Friebel. Police viewed lawfully held images of the defendant and were satisfied that the driver of the vehicle was the defendant.
Checks conducted by Police of the white Holden Colorado showed the vehicle was currently reported stolen and the correct registration was NSW DQH23T. The plates attached to the vehicle at the time bearing DCM78W were poorly produced fake registration places (this is the offence of numberplate/registration not properly issued CC2022/3061). The vehicle identification number (VIN) affixed to the vehicle was MMU148PK0GH606027. This was the correct VIN for NSW registration DQH23T.
Objective seriousness:
The prosecution correctly submitted that the aggravated, dangerous driving charge is the most objectively serious offence. Police were on foot in the area and the offending ultimately resulted in two collisions, the second in time being aggravated by the impact causing fuel to spill and a risk of harm. The prosecution have submitted that in these circumstances the objective seriousness for this offence falls above the mid-range.
The prosecution submitted that the damage to the AMPOL petrol pump and the McDonalds truck affected the ability of these businesses to operate and that this had a knock-on effect to the community regardless of the costs being absorbed by insurance or the size of the businesses affected. The value of the damage property to the petrol bowser was just below the ceiling allowed by the charge. I note that I found that the damage to the property was reckless and not intentional.
It was also submitted that offending by way of the charge of numberplate not properly issued impacts the integrity of the registration system.
The offender’s legal representative submitted that the offender instructed him that she previously used methylamphetamine 48 hours prior to the offending. The offender is a repeat offender.
Subjective circumstances:
The offender is currently 37 years old.
Her subjective circumstances are set out in the pre-sentence report dated 16 September 2022. Further submitted material included a letter dated 3 June 2022 from Wayback confirming her suitability into their rehabilitation program, a letter dated 02 September from the Recovery Hub setting out suitability for assessment for AOD treatment, a letter from Meg Williams, a case manager at Child and Youth Protection Services dated 5 August 2022 and five certificates earned and awarded whilst on remand.
The offender reported being the eldest of two children to her parent’s union. When she was three years of age her parents separated. She has had no contact with her father until becoming an adult and was primarily raised by her mother and stepfather. The offender maintains a close relationship with her mother who is currently caring for her children who are aged 14 and 10, one of whom is under an 18-year kinship order with CYPS. The offender states she has re-established relationships with her children. Her eldest child currently has expressed that he intends to return to reside with his mother in the future.
The relationship with the father of her eldest child was described by the offender as amicable. The relationship with the father of her youngest child has been fraught with drug use and domestic violence. She had attempted to leave the relationship on several occasions before she was ultimately successful in doing so.
The offender has been the sole occupier of a Housing ACT property in Gungahlin since 2020.
The offender ceased formal education after the completion of year ten, she maintained employment in customer service and as an administrative assistant. She ceased employment after suffering from a back injury approximately ten years ago. Since then, she has been in receipt of a Centrelink Disability Support Payment.
The offender has expressed an interest in working and training in the community sector, during her most recent period of remand she has been employed as a cleaner, in the bakery and is now the induction peer support officer for the women’s accommodation at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). She is to be commended for these efforts.
The offender has stated that she has previously tried to distance herself from anti-social associates and influences however she does find this difficult at times given that a significant number of her family members are known to the criminal justice system. She has at various times in her life maintained pro-social friendships and she believes she can do this again.
She reported having a history of illicit substance use ranging from increased use to periods of abstinence. She began the use of methylamphetamine in 2015 to cope with the trauma she experienced as a result of being exposed to domestic violence as well as the stress of going through the court system as a victim. Her use increased rapidly, using at most 0.5 grams of methylamphetamine per day. She reports being abstinent from illicit substances between May 2017 and early 2018, although a 12-month relapse followed. The use of illicit substances was irregular until her use increased prior to re-entering custody. She was also using GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate) during this time, she denies any illicit substance use during her current period of remand.
Although the offender experiences periods of low mood related to situational stress, she has reported no history of mental health issues. She reports that she is currently in good physical health.
The offender understands that her drug use as well as the people she was associating with have been a significant contributing factor to her offending and her ability to make appropriate choices. It has been reported that she has not tried to deflect blame and has accurately displayed insight into the consequences of her actions. The offender stated to the author of the pre-sentence report that she was “disappointed in herself”.
The author of the pre-sentence report assessed the offender as being a medium risk of general reoffending. The assessed risk is due to her alcohol and illicit substance use, anti-social peer network and lack of pro-social supports in the community. The offender did state that her recent time on remand has given her an opportunity to set goals that address her criminogenic risks. She has been assessed as suitable for an intensive corrections order (ICO). The author of the pre-sentence report also assessed the offender as suitable for a community service work condition, has assessed that the offender may benefit from a deferred sentence as well as a good behaviour order with medium level of intervention by ACT corrective services to address the identified areas of dynamic risk. The offender is also able to meet a financial penalty if given the benefit of a payment plan.
Importantly, a letter dated August 31 2022 has informed me that a bed is available today at The Glen For Women – an organisation who can provide a 12 week residential rehabilitation program for the defendant. To remain eligible, she must be willing to enter the program immediately should she be released from custody. She has identified that her illicit substance use is the primary factor in her offending and she will clearly need to address this before being able to move forward with an offending free life.
Criminal history:
Ms Friebel’s offending started in 2005. Her driving offences date back to 2012 and 2014 when she was charged with drive while suspended by law on two separate occasions. In 2019 she committed several similar offences to those currently before the Court, including a previous charge of number plate not properly issued, furious, reckless or dangerous driving and driving while unlicensed for which she was sentenced to 12-month good behaviour orders with a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the charge of furious, reckless or dangerous driving in 2020. There were breach proceedings in relation to those good behaviour orders in 2021 and a sentence of two months was imposed for the aggravated dangerous driving charge.
Later in in 2020 and 2021, she was sentenced for two dishonesty offences being two counts of minor theft, which resulted in fines totalling $1,100.
In NSW her criminal history commences in 2015 with an offence of drive vehicle with illicit drug present in blood. Later, in 2017, she was convicted of a further drive with illicit drug present in blood to which resulted in a $330 fine and a disqualification of six months.
This is the offenders fourth offence of driving whilst unlicenced, noting that she also has two prior convictions for driving whilst suspended. She has one like conviction for the number plate offence.
Plea of guilty:
The offender pleaded not guilty to the charge of damage property not over $1000 CC2022/6030 which was found proved by me on 29 August 2022. In relation to the drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid, CC2022/8097 the offender pleaded guilty on the first occasion after a voir dire where I found that the evidence of the blood sample taken from the offender was admissible.
The offender pleaded guilty to all remaining charges in the Magistrates Court. Indicating a plea of guilty to charge CC2022/3058 on the seventh occasion and formally entering the plea on the eighth occasion. Entering a plea of guilty to charge CC2022/7426 on the second occasion. Entering a plea of guilty to charge CC2022/3061 on the ninth occasion and lastly entering a plea of guilty to charge CC2022/6028 on the first occasion.
I find that a reduction in the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed of 25 percent is appropriate in relation to the charges other than CC2022/6030.
Time in custody:
The offender has spent five months, three weeks and five days in custody as of yesterday in relation to these charges. If the sentences to be imposed are to be backdated to take this time in custody into account, the backdate date would be the 30 March 2022.
Reparation orders:
The prosecution have sought reparation orders as follows:
(g) A reparation order in favour of Martin Bower Australia Pty Ltd in the sum of $6,797.41 for the damage caused to the McDonalds truck as result of the first collision.
(h) A reparation order in favour of Ampol Foodary Weston Creek in the sum of $4289.36 for the damage caused to the petrol bowser as a result of the second collision.
It is difficult to understand why the damage was not the subject of insurance claims and the excess amounts not claimed instead. Given the present circumstances of the offender it is highly unlikely that she will have the financial capacity to satisfy any such order in the near future. In those circumstances I decline to make the orders.
Like sentences:
The parties did not provide a list of comparative sentences. The Supreme Court regularly reminds us that they may be of assistance to find a yardstick with which to sentence. The High Court in Hill warned that consistency in sentencing is not achieved by numerical equivalence, rather “The consistency that is sought is consistency in the application of the relevant legal principles”[1]. With that warning in mind and because of the degree of objective seriousness of the dangerous driving charge I attempted to find some type of yardstick:
[1] Hill v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [50]
(a) In R v Crawford[2] Elkaim J commenced at a start point of 8 months imprisonment for a 19 year old offender for two counts of repeat offending aggravated dangerous driving: “He went through a red light. A little later he was travelling at high speed in Harrison. Police pursued. The offender did not stop. The offender drove into a residential complex. Police blocked the entrance and approached the Mercedes. The offender reversed towards one of the police officers who swiftly moved into a garden bed to avoid being hit. The Mercedes collided with a bollard but was then able to depart from the scene. On the same day the offender…mounted a footpath in order to avoid police vehicles that were attempting to block his path. He drove at high speed along a footpath and he ignored police directions to stop. He almost collided with an officer. The offender’s escape was blocked by a police vehicle. (He) collided with the police vehicle, pushing it several metres onto the other side of the road”.
[2] [2022] ACTSC 166
(b) In R v Dowling (No2)[3] Refshauge J commenced at a start point of 13 months each for two offences of aggravated dangerous driving (although in this instance the maximum was three year imprisonment due to the offender being a first offender) for a 27 year old woman who had suffered significant social deprivation in her life: “She stopped at the traffic lights at the intersection of Phillip Avenue and Windeyer Street, Downer, and police spoke to her, telling her to pull over. In the brief conversation with police through the car window, she admitted, in an arrogant way, that she should not be driving the car. Instead of waiting, however, Ms Dowling accelerated through the red traffic lights and along Phillip Avenue in a westerly direction. Police followed and activated their vehicle’s emergency lights and siren. They checked her speed along Phillip Avenue as not less than 120 kilometres per hour. She continued to speed and turned left onto the Federal Highway, losing control of the vehicle and mounting the concrete island in the centre of the road, but narrowly missing the light rail tracks. She continued to speed down the highway. Police followed with the vehicle’s siren and lights activated. Ms Dowling then sped through the red lights at the intersection of the Federal and Barton Highways and Northbourne Avenue, when the police discontinued the chase. At this time, there were well over 20 people out walking and riding bikes on the roads along which Ms Dowling sped. A number of vehicles had to take evasive action to avoid colliding with the car Ms Dowling was driving. The potential for a serious collision and a fatality was extremely high. On 20 April 2020… Police ran after Ms Dowling and instructed her to stop, but, instead, she attempted to get into the driver's seat of the vehicle. Police continued to direct her to stop and get out. She closed the door on police, but police attempted to open it. She reversed away and then, suddenly, accelerated forward, narrowly missing one or more of the police officer's feet (the evidence was not precisely clear) and drove away. Ms Dowling then drove along Belconnen Way, Bruce, at speeds assessed by police as approximately 140 kilometres an hour, where the speed limit on that road was 80 kilometres per hour. She was weaving between the lanes of traffic, which was moderate at the time. Police activated the emergency lights and siren of their vehicle, which signalled her to stop, but instead of doing so, she drove through the intersection of Gungahlin Drive and Belconnen Way against the red light. Ms Dowling continued to drive the Holden Astra motor vehicle at high speeds and dangerously, including through another red light at the intersection of Macarthur Avenue and Wattle Street, O’Connor. In doing so, the vehicle which she was driving collided with another vehicle which had been driving lawfully through the intersection. The collision caused significant damage to both vehicles. The vehicle Ms Dowling was driving swerved from the impact and collided with a fence, which stopped its progress at about 40 metres from the original collision site”.
[3] [2021] ACTSC 200
(c)In R v UG[4] the Court of Appeal declined to allow a prosecution appeal against a start point of 12 months for aggravated dangerous driving (although in this instance the maximum was three year imprisonment due to the offender being a first offender) for a 27 year old offender in the following circumstances: “The respondent ordered the four children to get into the car. They were crying. The respondent drove the vehicle around a circuit of the street before returning to the residence. The respondent demanded that the complainant get into the car. She pleaded for him to release the children first. The police arrived. They positioned their patrol car in such a way as to prevent the respondent from fleeing in his vehicle. However, the respondent manoeuvred his vehicle onto the road, with the children still in the vehicle. The respondent drove back towards the residence, colliding with the police vehicle and forcing an officer to retreat to a safer position. The respondent’s vehicle then accelerated away from the scene.”.
(d) In R v Roberts[5] Burns J arrived at a final sentence of five months imprisonment for a 20 year old offender (again, in circumstances of being a first offender with a maximum penalty of three years) on these facts: “At about 8.47 am that same day, police saw you driving the blue Holden Cruze in Wanniassa. You accelerated through a roundabout intersection, narrowly missing a northbound police vehicle, and then drove into Monash, travelling at speeds of up to 122 kilometres an hour along a residential street, with a posted speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour. You were observed to drive dangerously during this pursuit. Because of police concerns for the safety of the public, the pursuit was terminated.”
Consideration:
[4] [2020} ACTCA 8
[5] [2018] ACTSC 250
It is clear that for the aggravated dangerous driving charge and the property damage charges call for sentences of imprisonment. Nothing else would be appropriate.[6] The issues I must consider include length of sentences, discounts for any pleas of guilty, the totality[7] not crushing the offender, and how the sentences should be served.
[6] Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, s10
[7] Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 341 per Kirby J.
I find that the offending for the aggravated dangerous driving charge is well above the median. There were several attempts by police to intervene starting with the parking of the initial police vehicle, directions to stop, deployment of tyre spikes and attempted smashing of the driver’s window. A truck and a petrol bowser were significantly damaged as part of that driving (although there will be separate sentences for those offences). The risk to the public caused by the bowser spilling fuel was obvious. There was risk caused by the manner of driving to the police officers present and in close proximity.
The property damage charges are also objectively serious and nowhere near the lower end of the scale – they both fall above the median for that type of offending. I have been careful not to allow for double jeopardy between the driving and property damage charges.
The driving with drug in oral fluid charge is also a circumstance of aggravation for the dangerous driving charge. Thus, I do not think that it calls for a sentence of imprisonment.
I pause to say a few things about the sentencing process. I did not invent most of these words myself – the principles that I repeat here have been handed down from superior courts by jurists with great insight into the theory and practicality of sentencing.
Firstly, sentencing is not a linear or mathematical process. That is to say that just because offending sits in a category that is more serious than average does not mean that it should fall in a mathematical range of above 50% of the maximum penalty. The principle of parsimony applies to sentencing – the sentence must be no more severe than is necessary to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.[8]
[8] See for example the cases of R v Taylor [1984] 98 Cr App R (S) 361
General deterrence and punishment are not the be all and end all of sentencing. They are but two of many factors set out at s7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act that I am bound to consider.
General deterrence by way of punishment is intended to send the community a message about criminal behaviour not being tolerated by the community. There is a tied message of the expectation that if someone else does the same thing they should expect a similarly harsh punishment. One might think that this is a difficult concept to convey when considering offending that is committed after intoxicating substances have been consumed. Such substances by their nature appear to have the effect of disinhibition. That is not to say that such offending should not be punished adequately and certainly not lightly. It is to say that I do not think that consequences are often in the mind of an offender whilst they are in the midst of offending after consuming illicit drugs. However, those comments should be tempered with the knowledge that this particular offender ended up serving two months imprisonment only one year before for a similar charge.
It is clear that aggravated dangerous driving involving offenders and police is becoming more prevalent in this jurisdiction. I am entitled to use the general knowledge of the Court to ascertain this prevalence[9]. The level of discussion in the media about such offending in this jurisdiction is also general knowledge.
[9] R v Percey [1971] VR 647
Two factors emerge. Firstly, the words of Burt CJ of the Western Australia Supreme Court are apposite:
“It seems to be assumed, although I have considerable reservations about the assumption, that when an offence becomes prevalent the public demand retribution and they see increased punishment as being the sure way of reducing the number of such offences and even of persuading persons not to commit them at all. If that be the case than I would say, and say with great respect, that the expectation exceeds the capacity of the criminal law as an instrument controlling human behaviour.” [10]
[10] R v Peterson [1984} WAR 329 at 332.
Secondly, per the plurality of Victorian CCA:
“General deterrence and retribution are elements that must assume greater importance when the crime in question is a serious one, has been committed in a particularly grave form, and its contemporary prevalence is the cause of considerable community disquiet.”[11]
[11] R v Williscroft [1975} VR 292 at 299
I have reminded myself that the repeat nature of the offending has caused an increase in maximum penalty from three to five years and that this should be reflected in the sentence.
If this offender is to thrive in the community in a lawful way, she needs assistance with ridding herself of her romance with illicit drugs and poor human influences. It is hoped that the combined effect of her children being removed from her care and spending nearly six months in custody have provided the significant wakeup call that she required. If that proves not to be the case, her future looks to be one filled with further sadness and custodial deprivation of liberty.
I think that my discretion is enlivened to impose an ICO on at least some of the sentences I impose. One of the barriers here is that the sentencing legislation does not allow for a combination sentence of imprisonment and an ICO[12], but I have decided on a way to work around that issue given that the offender has spent nearly six months in custody.
[12] S 29 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005
I think that her performance whilst on remand does give rise to a real hope of rehabilitation. That can only serve to protect the community[13]. The sentences that I am about to impose are lengthy enough to serve the dual effect of general and specific deterrence that I intend.
Orders:
[13] Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 at 112 per King CJ
On the count of damage property over $1000 contrary to s403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2022/6030) a conviction is recorded. The charge was contested and proved, so there is no discount applicable. I think that the five months and 26 days that the offender has spent in custody is a significant but sufficient penalty in the circumstances and I impose it as an immediate custodial sentence. That will be backdated to date from 30 March which means that this term is served as of yesterday 25 September 2022.
On the repeat offender, aggravated furious/reckless and dangerous driving contrary to s7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2022/3058) a conviction is recorded, and the offender is disqualified from driving or holding a driver’s licence for 12 months. I started at 18 months imprisonment and have reduced that to 13 months and 15 days on account of the plea. I cannot backdate to allow concurrency[14] with charge 2022//6030 due to my intention to have this sentence served by way of ICO. On that basis I further reduce the sentence to a 12 month ICO to commence today to allow for totality. That sentence runs from 26 September 2022 to 25 September 2023.
[14] S 80(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005
On the count of destroy/damage property not exceeding $5000 contrary to s116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2022/7426) a conviction is recorded, and a sentence of six months imprisonment is imposed – reduced from 8 months on account of the plea. That will be concurrent as to two months on 2022/3058. The sentence will run from 26 July 2023 to 25 January 2024.and will also be served by way of ICO.
The total ICO length is 16 months commencing today and ending on 25 January 2024.
On the count of repeat offender drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid contrary to s20(1) of the Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1977 (ACT) (CC2022/8097) a conviction is recorded and a disqualification of 12 months from driving or holding a driver’s licence is imposed meaning that the total disqualification will be 24 months. I impose a fine of $300 reduced from $400 on account of the plea. There will be 28 days to pay.
On the count of using a vehicle with a numberplate attached that was not properly issued contrary to s22(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2022/3061) a conviction is entered and a fine of $150 reduced from $200 for the plea is imposed. There will be 28 days to pay.
On the count of driving while unlicensed contrary to s31(1) Road transport
(Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2022/6028) a conviction is recorded and a fine of $150 reduced from $200 for the plea is imposed. There will be 28 days to pay.
| I certify that the preceding 60 numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Magistrate Stewart .................. Associate: Ketinia McGowan Date:26 September 2022 |
and R v Milne [1982] 4 Cr App R (S) 397
0
3
7