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

1

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

10

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 60

1

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 60

1

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 months
disqualification.
It is unclear what facts were placed before the Magistrate,
but from the QP9 it does appear that there were complaints	20
that the vehicle driven by the appellant was driving
erratically along the New England Highway including driving on
the wrong side of the road.
30
Police intercepted the vehicle and prior to intercepting it
had observed the car driving on the wrong side of the road and
the interception occurred at approximately 3.20 p.m. Police
observed the appellant to have very red and watery eyes as
40
though she had been crying and she was asked if she had been crying. She replied that she had not.
The police observed that the appellant appeared to be having
difficulties understanding their questions and was very	50
incoherent. Police asked the appellant if she had consumed
any drugs and the appellant stated she'd only taken her

prescription medication.
A breath analysis at the roadside returned nil results and the 1-4 ORDER 60

appellant was taken to the Stanthorpe Base Hospital where a

specimen of her blood was taken for analysis. A certificate

of analysis dated the 17th of March 2009 was tendered before	10
the Magistrate and it revealed that the appellant had a number
of drugs in her system, in fact nine drugs.
Now there is some dispute on behalf of the appellant with
respect to the facts alleged, particularly it seems with	20
respect to the nature of her driving and it is certainly very
much of note that she was not charged with the dangerous
operation of her vehicle and only with the one offence of
driving under the influence.	30
Be that as it may, it does appear, as was submitted on the
appellant's behalf, that she did understand the police
requirements when intercepted, that she did fully co-operate
40
with the police. She readily admitted taking the prescription drugs and gave details of the prescribed drugs.
There is evidence before me from the appellant's doctor,
treating doctor and also from the Alcohol and Drug Service - a	50
senior medical officer from that service - that the appellant
has been prescribed drugs which would account for the drugs

found when her blood was analysed.
It is clear also that the appellant was legally entitled to 1-5 ORDER 60

those prescriptions and to take those drugs and that the

amounts found in her system were within the therapeutic

limits.	10
By her plea of guilty before the Magistrate, the appellant
conceded that the combined effects of the drugs on that day
meant that she should not have been driving and that she
should have realised that she was not in a fit state to drive.	20
The appellant has held a licence for some 11 years and, as I
say, has a very minor traffic history in those circumstances.
She's 29 years of age and is currently unemployed and looking	30
for work. The lack of a licence does affect her ability to
obtain employment and also makes it very difficult for her to
visit her mother who is seriously ill and lives some distance
away from her.
40
Clearly, it is important that courts do impose periods of
disqualification that not only reflect the serious nature of
the offending, but act as a deterrent to others who may be in
similar situations. This is a somewhat unique case. All of	50
the drugs that were being taken by the appellant were legally
prescribed and the amounts found in her blood were within the

prescribed limits. The appellant has paid the $1,000 fine
which of course in itself is a significant penalty. 1-6 ORDER 60

1

In the circumstances I am satisfied that it is appropriate to

re-sentence the appellant with respect to the disqualification

period and that a disqualification period effectively of eight	10
months and ten days is the appropriate sentence.
So the order that I'll make then is that so far as the
disqualification period is concerned, the order of the
Magistrate which was made on the 18th of August 2009 is set	20
aside and the disqualification period of eight months and ten
days is substituted. Otherwise the order of the Magistrate is
to remain in place.
30
Nothing further you need in the order, Mr Khan?
MR KHAN: No, your Honour.
40
HER HONOUR: All right. Anything further you are seeking?
MR KHAN: No, your Honour, thank you.
HER HONOUR: All right.	50

-----

1-7 ORDER 60