Police v Pimlott - [2011] SASC 214

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v PIMLOTT
[2011] SASC 214
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 convicted following a trial in the Magistrates Court of the offence of driving at a speed which was dangerous to the public contrary to section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) - where the defendant's vehicle was detected as travelling at 176 kilometres per hour while overtaking another vehicle - the Magistrate imposed a fine of $700.00 and disqualified the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 12 months - the defendant was also ordered to pay an impounding fee, court fees, a prosecution fee and a victim of crimes levy - where the Magistrate sentenced the defendant on the basis that he had an unblemished record apart from one conviction for excess speed - whether the amount of the fine and the length of the driver's licence disqualification were manifestly inadequate - whether the Magistrate failed to have proper regard to the seriousness of the offending.
Held: Appeal allowed - the Magistrate was correct to exercise her discretion under section 18(a) to impose a fine in lieu of a term of imprisonment - no basis has been advanced to increase the amount of the fine imposed - however, the Magistrate was in error in ordering that the defendant only be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for the mandatory minimum period of 12 months - that order was set aside and the defendant was resentenced to a period of 18 months driver's licence disqualification, taking effect from 27 May 2011 - the other orders of the Magistrate were confirmed.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 46; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18, referred to.
Police v Berzins [2011] SASCFC 146; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, considered.

POLICE v PIMLOTT
[2011] SASC 214
Magistrates Appeals
GRAY J.

This is an appeal against sentence.
The defendant and respondent, Adam Lloyd Pimlott, following a trial before a Magistrate was convicted of the offence of driving at a speed which was dangerous to the public contrary to section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).
The offence was committed at or about 7.05pm on 18 June 2010 on Main South Road, Tatachilla. At that time the defendant was driving a Commodore motor vehicle in a southerly direction on Main South Road. A police officer, stationed at the corner of Sheriff Road and Main South Road, was performing static laser duties. The officer observed the defendant’s vehicle travelling at high speed towards his position. At this point on Main South Road, there were two lanes for southbound traffic. The lane nearest to the centre…

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 Pimlott

Details

AGLC: Police v Pimlott [2011] SASC 214
Case: [2011] SASC 214
Decision Date: 9 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Pimlott, the defendant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of South Australia for driving at a speed dangerous to the public, in contravention of section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The conviction arose from the defendant's vehicle being detected travelling at 176 kilometres per hour while overtaking another vehicle. The Magistrate imposed a penalty of a $700 fine and disqualified the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 12 months, in addition to ordering the defendant to pay an impounding fee, court fees, a prosecution fee, and a victim of crimes levy. The sentence was imposed considering the defendant's unblemished record, aside from a prior conviction for excess speed.

The central legal issues addressed in the appeal were whether the fine and the length of the driver's licence disqualification were manifestly inadequate, and whether the Magistrate failed to properly consider the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the Magistrate correctly exercised her discretion to impose a fine instead of imprisonment, as no basis was presented to increase the fine. However, the Magistrate erred in imposing the minimum period of 12 months for driver's licence disqualification. This was considered manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's high-speed driving.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The fine and other orders of the Magistrate were confirmed, but the driver's licence disqualification was set aside and resentenced to 18 months, effective from 27 May 2011. This decision underscores the importance of adequately considering both the nature of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender when imposing penalties.

Orders