Queensland Police Service v Pacey - [2010] QDC 240

[2010] QDC 240

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE BRADLEY
No 135 of 2009

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE	Respondent (Plaintiff)
and
SHARON LEANNE PACEY	Appellant (Defendant)
IPSWICH ..DATE 28/04/2010 ORDER

1-1

HER HONOUR: On the 18th of August 2009, the appellant pleaded

guilty in the Magistrates Court sitting at Stanthorpe to a influence of a drug.
charge that on the 16th of January 2009, whilst driving on the

The drug in question was a combination of prescribed drugs

which the appellant has lawfully been prescribed by medical

practitioners to assist her with a range of conditions,

including bipolar disorder, panic disorder and depression and	20
which she has been taking for some time.
Unfortunately, the proceedings in the Magistrates Court were
not recorded due to some sort of malfunction and I have no
idea what facts were placed before the Magistrate, what	30
submissions were made to the Magistrate by both the
prosecution and the defence, or indeed what the Magistrate's
sentencing remarks were. The sentence imposed by the
Magistrate was one of a fine of $1,000 and she disqualified	40
the appellant from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for
a period of two years. A conviction was recorded.
It is conceded by the respondent on behalf of the Queensland
50
Police Service that because of the lack of a transcript I should sentence afresh.

It is clear that the Magistrate had before her, and indeed it has also been placed before me, the appellant's traffic

1-2

ORDER

history, which had only two entries, one of disobey a left

hand turn sign, which was committed on the 25th of November

2008, and another of exceeding the speed limit by more than 20

kilometres but not more than 30 kilometres, which was	10
committed on the 7th of January 2009.
The appellant had no previous convictions for any alcohol or
drug related traffic offences and had never been disqualified
from holding or obtaining a driver's licence or indeed had her	20
licence removed on the basis of loss of points.
The appellant's criminal history which was also before the
Magistrate, had one entry on it, simply a conviction for shop	30
stealing, an offence which was committed back in 2004 and for
which she was fined $120 and no conviction recorded.
So clearly the appellant has a relatively good traffic and
40
criminal history and it would seem that certainly those histories would have little effect on the penalty to be
imposed.
The appeal is against the term of the disqualification period	50
only. The appellant submits that the period of
disqualification should be reduced to eight months and ten

days, which would effectively mean that she would be entitled
to apply for her licence back again today.

1-3

ORDER

The respondent submits that in the circumstances of the case

that the public interest requires a term of disqualification

of 12 months. The mandatory term of disqualification under	10
the relevant legislation is one of six…

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 Queensland Police Service v Pacey

Details

AGLC: Queensland Police Service v Pacey [2010] QDC 240
Case: [2010] QDC 240
Decision Date: 28/04/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court Appellate Jurisdiction heard an appeal against the disqualification period imposed on Sharon Leanne Pacey by the Magistrates Court. The appellant, Pacey, had pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of a drug while driving on 16 January 2009. The drug in question was a combination of prescribed drugs which Pacey had lawfully been prescribed by medical practitioners to assist with her bipolar disorder, panic disorder, and depression. The appeal challenged the two-year disqualification period from holding or obtaining a driver's licence imposed by the Magistrate. The proceedings in the Magistrates Court were not recorded due to a malfunction, leaving the court without a transcript of the facts presented, submissions made, or the sentencing remarks.

The legal issue before the court was whether the two-year disqualification period was appropriate given the circumstances. Pacey's traffic history was relatively minor, with only two entries, and she had no previous convictions for alcohol or drug-related traffic offences. Her criminal history included a single conviction for shoplifting in 2004, for which she was fined and no conviction was recorded. The respondent, on behalf of the Queensland Police Service, conceded that due to the lack of a transcript, a fresh sentence should be imposed. Pacey argued for a reduced disqualification period of eight months and ten days, while the respondent argued for a 12-month disqualification period. The mandatory term of disqualification under the relevant legislation was six months.

The court considered the unique nature of the case, where all the drugs Pacey had taken were legally prescribed and within therapeutic limits. The court also noted the circumstances under which the offence occurred, including allegations of erratic driving, and Pacey's cooperation with police. The court recognised the importance of imposing disqualification periods that reflect the seriousness of the offence and act as a deterrent. Given Pacey's clean traffic history, her cooperation with police, and the fact that she had already paid the $1,000 fine, the court determined that an eight-month and ten-day disqualification period was appropriate. The court set aside the original two-year disqualification period and substituted it with an eight-month and ten-day period, leaving the rest of the Magistrate's order in place.

Orders