R v Suidgeest Summary

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 191 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ANDREW JAMES SUIDGEEST

No. 192 of 2000

THE QUEEN

MATHEW KENNETH SUIDGEEST

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, BATT and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 68

---

Sentencing – Armed robbery – Motor vehicle used to convey offenders to the scene – Upon conviction, driving licence cancelled and period of disqualification fixed – Whether beyond power – No argument advanced by Crown - Road Safety Act 1986, s.28(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellants	Mr. J. Singh	Paul A. Vale Pty. Ltd.

PHILLIPS, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

These are two appeals brought by leave against sentences imposed on two co-offenders who were presented in the County Court on one count of armed robbery. Both pleaded guilty and on 11 July 2000 they were sentenced, one to five years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and the other to five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. Both had licences to drive which were cancelled and both were disqualified for a certain period of time from obtaining a further licence. Andrew Suidgeest was disqualified for six years and Matthew Suidgeest for five years. Both are now appealing on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, but in both cases the appeal is limited to the order for licence cancellation and the fixing of a period of disqualification.

The first question raised by these appeals is whether the judge had power to act under s.28 of the Road Safety Act 1986. Section 28(1) authorises the court to cancel a driver licence and to disqualify the holder from obtaining one for a period of time, but the power in a case like this depends upon whether the conviction in question was for an "offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle". In this case the motor vehicle was used to convey the appellants to the site of the offending, a local BP service station, and would no doubt have been used for their escape had a security officer not intervened to make them flee on foot.

The appellants contend that the offence for which each of them was convicted was not an "offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle" within the meaning of s.28(1). This morning, counsel for the respondent submitted an outline of argument in which he accepted on behalf of the respondent that s.28(1) did not apply in the instant case.

In the result, the Court has determined that the appeals should be allowed for the purpose of setting aside the orders for cancellation and disqualification, no argument to the contrary having been advanced.

On each appeal an order is made in these terms:

The appeal is allowed and the order made in the County Court on 11 July 2000, that any driver licence or permit held be cancelled and that the prisoner be disqualified for a certain period from obtaining any such licence, is set aside.

Otherwise the sentences imposed below are confirmed.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Suidgeest, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery and faced sentencing considerations. The court was required to address the issue of whether the cancellation of the defendant's driving licence and the imposition of a period of disqualification, in accordance with the Road Safety Act 1986, section 28(1), were appropriate and within the power of the court. The defendant's motor vehicle was used to convey the offenders to the scene of the crime, and this was a significant factor in the sentencing process. The Crown did not advance any argument regarding the legality of the court's power to impose these penalties.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986, section 28(1), which authorised the court to cancel the driving licence of a person convicted of an offence involving the use of a motor vehicle and to fix a period of disqualification. The court concluded that the cancellation of the defendant's driving licence and the imposition of a period of disqualification were within its power, as the defendant had used his motor vehicle in the commission of the armed robbery. The court found that the penalties were appropriate and necessary to serve as a deterrent to the defendant and others who might be tempted to use their motor vehicles in the commission of similar offences.

The court imposed a sentence that included the cancellation of the defendant's driving licence and a period of disqualification. The court considered the nature of the offence, the role of the defendant's motor vehicle in the commission of the crime, and the need to impose a penalty that would serve as a deterrent to the defendant and others. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the circumstances of the case.

No further orders were made by the court. The defendant's driving licence was cancelled, and he was disqualified from obtaining a new licence for the specified period. The court's decision in R v Suidgeest provides guidance to other courts in similar cases involving the use of motor vehicles in the commission of serious offences. The court's reasoning demonstrates the importance of considering the full range of penalties available under the Road Safety Act 1986 when sentencing offenders who have used their motor vehicles in the commission of crimes.

R v Suidgeest

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established