Pugh v White - [2003] TASSC 135

[2003] TASSC 135

CITATION: Pugh v White [2003] TASSC 135

PARTIES:  PUGH, Bruce Allan
  v
  WHITE, Sergeant Graham Ross

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 33/2003
DELIVERED ON:  11 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  5 December 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Licensing of drivers – Tasmania – Disqualification, and cancellation and suspension of licences – Disqualification – Driving while disqualified and under influence of alcohol – Eight months imprisonment – Whether manifestly excessive.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [26]
Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Alcohol and drug related offences – Tasmania – Driving under influence of alcohol and while disqualified – Eight months imprisonment – Whether manifestly excessive.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [80]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  S J N Brown
           Respondent:  J P Ransom
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment ID Number: [2003] TASSC 135
Number of paragraphs: 15

Serial No 135/2003
File No LCA 33/2003

BRUCE ALLAN PUGH v SERGEANT GRAHAM ROSS WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
11 December 2003

The applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court on his pleas of guilty to driving while disqualified under the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 ("the Act"), contrary to s19A(1), and of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to s4(a). He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, the last four months of which were suspended upon condition that for two years following his release from prison he commit no offence under the Act as the driver of a vehicle. It was also ordered that he is disqualified from driving for three years six months, to commence immediately upon the expiration of his then current period of disqualification (that is, on 24 January 2004).

He has applied to review the sentence on two grounds, that the learned magistrate erred by concluding that an immediate actual sentence of imprisonment was unavoidable, and by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. The grounds may be considered as one.

At about 3.35pm on Thursday, 8 May 2003, the applicant was driving a motor vehicle on Birralee Road. He had no passengers. Police stopped him for the purpose of a random breath test. He was known to be a disqualified driver. His breath smelled strongly of intoxicating liquor, his eyes appeared sleepy and his speech was slurred. A subsequent breath analysis resulted in a reading of 0.238 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

At the time the applicant was 43 years old and he had a record of some significance. In 1983 he was fined and disqualified from driving for 15 months for exceeding .05, the reading being 0.29. On 24 July 2001, he was convicted of being a driver without a licence with alcohol in his body on 13 March 2001. The reading at that time was 0.166. He was fined $1,000 and disqualified from driving for two years six months. The offences the subject of the motion…

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 Pugh v White

Details

AGLC: Pugh v White [2003] TASSC 135
Case: [2003] TASSC 135
Decision Date: 11 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pugh v White involves an appeal against a sentence imposed on Mr Pugh for driving while disqualified and under the influence of alcohol. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Mr Pugh was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, and he appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of eight months imprisonment was manifestly excessive, considering the relevant factors and the sentencing principles applicable in the context of traffic law and driver licensing. The court was required to assess the seriousness of the offence, Mr Pugh's personal circumstances, and the objectives of sentencing in traffic law cases, including deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, including Mr Pugh's previous convictions and driving history, and the objective of protecting the public from harm caused by disqualified drivers. The court also considered the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter Mr Pugh and others from driving while disqualified and under the influence of alcohol.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence of eight months imprisonment imposed on Mr Pugh. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and served the objectives of sentencing in traffic law cases. The decision reaffirms the importance of upholding traffic laws and protecting public safety on the roads.

Orders