R v Jason

Case [2002] SASC 201


R v JASON
[2002] SASC 201

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Doyle CJ, Williams and Gray JJ

  1. DOYLE CJ:          I would dismiss the appeal.  I agree with the reasons given by Gray J.  There is nothing that I wish to add.

  2. WILLIAMS J       I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.

    GRAY J

    Background

  3. The appellant pleaded guilty to nine counts of creating risk of bodily harm[1], two counts of damaging property[2] and one count of illegal use of motor vehicle[3]. He was convicted of each offence.

    [1] Contrary to s 29(3) of the Criminal Law Consoldiation Act 1935 (SA). Maximum penalty is five years imprisonment.

    [2] Section 85(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Maximum penalties of two and three years imprisonment.

    [3] Section 86A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Maximum penalty two years imprisonment, with a disqualification of driver’s licence for twelve months.

  4. The learned sentencing judge (“the judge”) invoked Section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) (“the Sentencing Act”) and imposed one penalty for all offences. He sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for a period of five years and three months and set a non-parole period of three years and six months. In fixing the head sentence the judge took seven years as his starting point and made a reduction of 25 percent on account of the pleas of guilty. The judge declined to exercise his discretion to suspend the sentence. He disqualified the appellant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence until further order.

  5. The offending occurred on 13 May 2001. At about 8.30 pm the appellant was observed driving at Hackham West by a police officer. He was followed in an unmarked police vehicle. A check indicated that the vehicle registration had expired some days earlier. The officer activated the vehicle’s flashing red and blue lights. The appellant stopped and the unmarked police vehicle stopped to the rear of his vehicle. The officer started to get out of the police vehicle. The appellant then reversed into that vehicle. The officer had to jump out of the way to avoid injury.

  6. The appellant then drove off, with the officer giving chase. During the pursuit, the appellant drove at high speeds.  He overtook a number of vehicles and caused others to take evasive action. A marked police vehicle also joined the pursuit, as did the police helicopter. The appellant drove towards the marked police vehicle, causing it to swerve to avoid collision. At that time his speed was estimated at 60 to 70 kilometres per hour.

  7. A second marked police vehicle began following the appellant’s vehicle.  That vehicle activated its siren, but the appellant continued driving at high speeds reaching up to 100 kilometres per hour. The appellant travelled through the intersection of South Road and Flaxmill Road, Morphett Vale.  He disobeyed a red light at a speed of approximately 80 kilometres per hour. As he proceeded along South Road, he…

Continue reading R v Jason

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jason [2002] SASC 201
Case
[2002] SASC 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the defendant, Jason, against his conviction and sentencing for driving while disqualified. The appeal was heard in the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary concern of the appeal was the legality of the sentence imposed on the defendant, specifically the disqualification from obtaining a driver’s license for a period of twelve months.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed upon Jason was lawful under the relevant sections of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The specific issues included the applicability of section 86A of the Act, which provides for a penalty of a two-year imprisonment term and a disqualification from obtaining a driver’s license for twelve months. The court also had to consider the maximum penalties prescribed under sections 29(3), 85(3) of the Act, which include imprisonment terms of five years, two years, and three years respectively.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Jason was indeed lawful. The reasoning of the court was based on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), which allowed for the combination of penalties, including imprisonment and disqualification from obtaining a driver’s license. The court found no errors in the sentencing process and upheld the sentence as within the legal parameters set by the statute. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were confirmed.

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

WILLIAMS J (dissent)
This appeal must be dismissed.LIST OF CITATIONS AS THEY APPEAR IN JUDGMENT1 Contrary to s 29(3) of the Criminal Law Consoldiation Act 1935 (SA). Maximum penalty is five years imprisonment.2 Section 85(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Maximum penalties of two and three years imprisonment.3 Section 86A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Maximum penalty two years imprisonment, with a disqualification of driver’s licence for twelve months.4 (1998) 70 SASR 4885 (2000) 202 CLR 321 at 324-5, see also Gaudron and Gummow JJ at 329 and Kirby J at 3396 (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505.7 (2001) 121 A Crim R 254 at 2678 (1982) 30 SASR 84 at 939 (2002) 219 LSJS 105.10 (1999) 198 CLR 111 at 121-2. See also Hayne J at 156

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.