Police v Federuzzi - [2008] SASC 104

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v FEDERUZZI
[2008] SASC 104
Judgment of The Honourable Justice David
24 April 2008
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PROCEDURE - SENTENCE
Crown appeal against sentence - whether "proper cause" existed for reducing demerit points to zero, pursuant to s 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA).
Held: No "proper cause" - appeal allowed.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 47A, s 47B(1)(a); Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 98B(4), referred to.
Gilbert v Owen (1991) 14 MVR 235; Kramer v Morris (1975) 11 SASR 305; McCade v Chandler (1984) 37 SASR 477; Portellos v Police (Unreported SASC, Perry J, 5 August 1996); Thorley v Police (Unreported SASC, Perry J, 16 December 1997); Zanker v Hyndman (1990) 11 MVR 224, applied.

POLICE v FEDERUZZI
[2008] SASC 104
Magistrates Appeal
DAVID J.
Introduction

This is a prosecution appeal against sentence, pursuant to s 42 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA).
The respondent pleaded guilty to exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol contrary to s 47B(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The magistrate imposed a conviction and a fine of $100, and, pursuant to s 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) (“the MVA”), made an order reducing the demerit points from three down to zero.
The prosecution appeal the decision of the magistrate to reduce the demerit points to zero. Section 98B(4) of the MVA provides that a court may order a reduced number of demerit points, or no demerit points, if it is satisfied by evidence on oath that the offence is trifling, or that any other proper cause exists.
Background
On 30 March 2007, the respondent drove a motor vehicle on Prospect Road, Kilburn and was pulled over at a Random Breath Testing station. The respondent submitted to an Alcotest and recorded a positive reading. He then submitted to a Blood Alcohol test and it was found that the concentration of alcohol present in his system was 0.075 G in 100 Ml of blood.
At the hearing in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court on 5 February 2008, the respondent explained that he had been at work until 1.00 pm, and had then gone to a hotel to celebrate a fellow employee’s birthday. He was pulled over by police officers at the Random Breath Testing Station at 4.43 pm. On cross‑examination, the respondent admitted he had told police that he had consumed five beers over the three and a half hours he was at the hotel.
The magistrate questioned the respondent as to the impact of the possible licence disqualification on his livelihood. The respondent stated:
Well, my licence is my livelihood. I need it to get around my tools. I take my kids to school. My wife starts work at five in the morning, so I take my kids to school as well.
In his remarks on penalty, the magistrate stated that “the penalty…

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 Police v Federuzzi

Details

AGLC: Police v Federuzzi [2008] SASC 104
Case: [2008] SASC 104
Decision Date: 24 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v Federuzzi, the prosecution appealed against the decision of the magistrate to reduce the demerit points to zero for the respondent. The respondent was found to be in breach of the Road Traffic Act by driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.075 G in 100 Ml of blood. The magistrate considered the potential hardship to the respondent's family and reduced the demerit points to zero. The prosecution challenged the decision on the basis that the magistrate did not properly consider whether the offence was trifling or whether there was any other proper cause to reduce the demerit points.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the magistrate properly exercised his discretion in reducing the demerit points to zero. The relevant statutory provision, section 98B(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, allows a court to reduce demerit points if it is satisfied by evidence on oath that the offence is trifling or if any other proper cause exists. The prosecution argued that the magistrate did not provide explicit reasons for reducing the demerit points and that the offence was not trifling. The court had to determine whether the magistrate's decision was legally sound and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements.

The court found that the magistrate did not provide clear reasons for reducing the demerit points to zero, and it was not evident from the magistrate's remarks whether he considered the offence to be trifling or if there was any other proper cause. The court noted that the offence was typical, as the respondent had consumed alcohol and driven home, which did not constitute a trifling offence. Furthermore, the court concluded that the magistrate placed too much emphasis on the hardship to the respondent's family rather than the circumstances of the offence itself. Therefore, the court held that the magistrate erred in reducing the demerit points to zero and allowed the appeal. The court rescinded the magistrate's order reducing the demerit points to zero and reinstated the original penalty of three demerit points. However, the court upheld the imposition of a $100 fine.

In conclusion, the court allowed the prosecution's appeal and set aside the magistrate's decision to reduce the demerit points to zero. The court held that the magistrate did not provide adequate reasons for reducing the demerit points and that the offence was not trifling. The court reinstated the original penalty of three demerit points but upheld the imposition of a $100 fine. The decision highlights the importance of providing clear reasons for reducing demerit points and ensuring that the court properly considers the circumstances of the offence and any proper cause for reduction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The prosecution appeal the decision of the magistrate to reduce the demerit points to zero. Section 98B(4) of the MVA provides that a court may order a reduced number of demerit points, or no demerit points, if it is satisfied by evidence on oath that the offence is trifling, or that any other proper cause exists.Background On 30 March 2007, the respondent drove a motor vehicle on Prospect Road, Kilburn and was pulled over at a Random Breath Testing station. The respondent submitted to an Alcotest and recorded a positive reading. He then submitted to a Blood Alcohol test and it was found that the concentration of alcohol present in his system was 0.075 G in 100 Ml of blood. At the hearing in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court on 5 February 2008, the respondent explained that he had been at work until 1.00 pm, and had then gone to a hotel to celebrate a fellow employee’s birthday. He was pulled over by police officers at the Random Breath Testing Station at 4.43 pm. On cross‑examination, the respondent admitted he had told police that he had consumed five beers over the three and a half hours he was at the hotel. The magistrate questioned the respondent as to the impact of the possible licence disqualification on his livelihood. The respondent stated:Well, my licence is my livelihood. I need it to get around my tools. I take my kids to school. My wife starts work at five in the morning, so I take my kids to school as well.In his remarks on penalty, the magistrate stated that “the penalty suffered by the defendant in these circumstances far outweighs the seriousness of the offence.” He detailed the hardship that the respondent and his family would suffer were his licence disqualified, and then reduced the demerit points that would normally be incurred to zero.Ground of Appeal The appellant argues that the magistrate did not expressly state in his reasons the basis on which he acted to reduce the demerit points down to zero. Section 98B(4) of the MVA provides:If a court by which a person is convicted of an offence is satisfied by evidence given on oath forthwith on conviction that the offence is trifling, or that any other proper cause exists, it may order that a reduced number of demerit points, or no demerit points, are incurred by the person in respect of that offence.It is not explicit in the magistrate’s remarks on penalty whether he thought that the offence was trifling, or whether he was of the view that any other proper cause existed to reduce the demerit points. It is well established that offences may be considered trifling if they are purely technical or causal. Similarly, an offence will not be considered trifling if it is a typical offence of the class prescribed.[1][1] Thorley v Police (Unreported SASC, Perry J, 16 December 1997); McCade v Chandler (1984) 37 SASR 477. However, in his remarks on penalty, the magistrate stated that “this is a typical offence; there is nothing unusual about it.” This suggests that the magistrate did not find the offence trifling.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

DAVID J

The magistrate noted in his remarks that at the time of the offence the traffic was medium, there was no emergency and no need for the respondent to rush home. He detailed the impact that the licence disqualification would have on the respondent’s livelihood and that of his family.Conclusion It is clear that the magistrate relied heavily on the circumstances of the offender in deciding to reduce the demerit points to zero. Given the above authorities, in my view, the magistrate erred in placing too much weight on the hardship of the offender, rather than the circumstances of the offence itself. The offence was typical, as the respondent had gone from work to a hotel, had consumed alcohol and then been apprehended whilst driving home. There was no good reason for him driving home, there was no emergency, nor were the traffic conditions light. The offence was actually on the higher end of the scale, as the respondent’s blood alcohol reading was just below the 0.08 G in 100 Ml of blood limit for a category 1 offence as defined in s 47A of the Road Traffic Act. Given these facts, there does not appear to be any “proper cause” as defined by the authorities to reduce the demerit points to zero. I would allow the appeal. I rescind the order of the magistrate reducing the demerit points from three to zero. In all other respects the penalty will remain, namely a fine of $100. There will be an incursion of three demerit points.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DAVID J

Full text does not contain this section.