Police v Godwin - [2011] SASC 222

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v GODWIN
[2011] SASC 222
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
9 December 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - SENTENCE - OTHER OFFENCES
Police appeal against sentence - defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of driving without due care, aggravated as there was present in the defendant's blood a prescribed concentration of alcohol - where a statutory minimum driver's licence disqualification of six months was applicable - Magistrate imposed minimum six months disqualification - complained on appeal that the period of licence disqualification was manifestly inadequate - whether Magistrate in error in imposing statutory minimum disqualification.
Held: appeal dismissed - Magistrate imposed a penalty within her sentencing discretion - the circumstances justified the Magistrate adopting an approach that offered leniency and mercy - a distinction is to be drawn between the case of a person driving with excess alcohol in their blood and a person who knowingly drives with a want of due care knowing that they are affected by alcohol, the latter circumstances warranting a heavier penalty than the former - while the latter might generally attract more than the statutory minimum licence disqualification, there will be cases where the overall circumstances may allow a sentencing court to impose the statutory minimum.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45, s 47A and s 47B, referred to.
Police v Berzins [2011] SASCFC 146, considered.

POLICE v GODWIN
[2011] SASC 222
Magistrates Appeals
GRAY J:

This is a police appeal against sentence.
The defendant and respondent, Michael Keith Godwin, pleaded guilty to a charge of driving without due care contrary to section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The offence was aggravated as there was present in the defendant’s blood a prescribed concentration of alcohol – 0.133 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The Magistrate exercised her powers under section 18 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) and in lieu of imposing a term of imprisonment, ordered that the defendant undertake 50 hours of community service. In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay a little more than $1000.00, being an impounding fee, a prosecution fee and a victims of crime levy.
The Magistrate disqualified the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of one month and five days. In making this order the Magistrate had regard to the fact that the defendant at the time of the offence was subjected to an instant loss of licence and that at the time of sentencing, he had been disqualified for a period of four months and 25 days. As a consequence, the defendant was disqualified for a total of six months.
When sentencing, the Magistrate remarked:
…You come before this Court with an unblemished record. You have indicated remorse,…

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 Godwin

Details

AGLC: Police v Godwin [2011] SASC 222
Case: [2011] SASC 222
Decision Date: 9 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Godwin, the police appealed against the sentence imposed on the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of driving without due care, which was aggravated by the presence of a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. The statutory minimum driver's licence disqualification for this offence was six months. The Magistrate imposed this minimum disqualification period, leading the police to argue on appeal that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The central legal issue was whether the Magistrate erred in imposing the statutory minimum disqualification period.

The court examined the Magistrate's decision to impose the statutory minimum period of disqualification. The court noted that the Magistrate's decision was within her sentencing discretion and took into account the circumstances of the case, which warranted leniency and mercy. The court further explained that there is a distinction between driving with excess alcohol in one's blood and knowingly driving without due care while affected by alcohol. The latter scenario generally attracts a heavier penalty than the former. However, the court held that there may be cases where the overall circumstances allow a sentencing court to impose the statutory minimum period of disqualification.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Magistrate's imposition of the statutory minimum disqualification period was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court found that the Magistrate had exercised her discretion correctly and had appropriately balanced the need for leniency with the seriousness of the offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders