[1999] SASC 454
R V JAMES (NO. 2)
Court of Criminal Appeal: Millhouse, Duggan and Lander JJ
1 MILLHOUSE J. I agree.
2 DUGGAN J. I agree.
3 LANDER J. The appellant appealed against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court. On 21 September 1999 this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the sentencing Judge. It substituted a lower head sentence and a shorter non parole period.
4 It was part of the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge that the appellant should be disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for two years. The sentencing Judge ordered that that disqualification should take place at the expiration of the non parole period namely 23 June 2002.
5 The order of this Court was to reduce the non parole period to two years and six months. Neither party addressed any argument in relation to the question of licence disqualification which had to follow having regard to the offences for which the appellant was convicted.
6 It seems to me that there should be an amendment to that part of the order relating to the licence disqualification made by the sentencing Judge to bring it into line with the reduced non parole period.
7 I would therefore order that the licence disqualification of two years should take effect from the date upon which the appellant is released from prison on parole or on the completion of the term of the sentence of imprisonment, whichever is the earlier.
8 In all other respects I would confirm the order of this Court made on 21 September 1999.
2
- AGLC
- R v James (No 2) No. Sccrm-99-100 Judgment No. S454 [1999] SASC 454
- Case
- [1999] SASC 454
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Court was whether the disqualification period for the driver’s licence should be adjusted to align with the new non-parole period. The Court considered that the disqualification period should reflect the reduced sentence, and therefore, should commence from the date of the appellant’s release on parole or the completion of the imprisonment term, whichever is earlier. This interpretation ensures that the disqualification period is proportionate to the overall sentence.
In its reasoning, the Court determined that the original disqualification period did not align with the reduced non-parole period and thus needed amendment. The Court held that the disqualification should begin from the earlier of the release on parole or the completion of the imprisonment term. The Court confirmed the rest of the order made on 21 September 1999, maintaining the reduced sentence. The Court’s decision ensured the sentence’s proportionality and alignment with the revised non-parole period.
The final order of the Court was to adjust the disqualification period for the driver’s licence to commence from the earlier of the release on parole or the completion of the imprisonment term. This amendment aimed to maintain the proportionality of the sentence and ensure consistency with the reduced non-parole period. The rest of the sentence, including the reduced non-parole period, remained unchanged.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.