Reeves v Regan
[2016] WASC 106
•5 APRIL 2016
REEVES -v- REGAN [2016] WASC 106
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 106 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1076/2015 | 31 MARCH 2016 | |
| Coram: | CORBOY J | 5/04/16 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SEAN FRANCIS REEVES EMILEY JAYDE REGAN CHRISTOPHER JACK CHRISTIAN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Section 63(2)(c) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) Whether permanent disqualification mandatory |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60(1), s 60(2)(c) |
Case References: | Jackamarra v Orr [2003] WASCA 278 K (a child) v Panaia [2011] WASC 210 Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
EMILEY JAYDE REGAN
First Respondent
CHRISTOPHER JACK CHRISTIAN
Second Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE R S HUSTON
File No : FR 423 of 2015, FR 424 of 2015, FR 425 of 2015, FR 426 of 2015
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Section 63(2)(c) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) - Whether permanent disqualification mandatory
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 60(1), s 60(2)(c)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
First Respondent : Mr T Pontre
Second Respondent : Mr T Pontre
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
First Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Jackamarra v Orr [2003] WASCA 278
K (a child) v Panaia [2011] WASC 210
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
- CORBOY J:
The application and the result
1 The appellant was convicted following trial of four charges:
(a) on 11 January 2015, he drove a motor vehicle registration number 1CW W138 on a road, namely, Douro Road, South Fremantle, whilst under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of such vehicle, contrary to s 63(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (RTA);
(b) on 11 January 2015, he unlawfully damaged a motor vehicle, namely a Holden Commodore, registration 1EBF 462, being the property of Deborah Pratt, contrary to s 445 of the Criminal Code (WA);
(c) on 11 January 2015, in a lockup at Perth Watch House, he behaved in a disorderly manner by being verbally abusive, making threats to officers, also spitting at and attempting to bite officers, contrary to s 74A(2)(b) of the Criminal Code; and
(d) on 11 January 2015, he obstructed Senior Constable Houghton, a member of the Western Australian Police, in the performance of the officer's functions, contrary to s 172(2) of the Criminal Code.
2 The sentencing magistrate imposed a fine of $2,500 and disqualified the appellant from holding or obtaining a driver's licence permanently for the offence committed against s 63(1) RTA. The appellant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that, '[the penalty] was unfair of length of time of loss of licence'.
3 Section 9 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) provides that the leave of the court is required for each proposed ground of appeal. The court must not grant leave unless it is satisfied that the proposed ground has a reasonable prospect of succeeding: Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473.
4 The proposed ground of appeal has no reasonable prospect of success for the following reasons.
Reasons
5 The appellant has two prior convictions for offences against s 63(1) RTA (the convictions were recorded on 14 June 1999 and 8 August 2002). Section 63(2)(c) RTA provides that a person convicted of an offence against s 63(1) is liable, for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than 42PU or more than 100PU, or to imprisonment for 18 months; and in any event, the court convicting that person shall order that he be permanently disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.
6 In Jackamarra v Orr [2003] WASCA 278, Barker J held that the period of disqualification specified by s 63(2)(c) RTA for a third offence was mandatory, so that the order of the court must be that the offender is permanently disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor vehicle driver's licence [34]. As his Honour observed, there is no discretion in the matter. That aspect of his Honour's reasons has not been subsequently doubted. I also note that in K (a child) v Panaia [2011] WASC 210 [32], Hall J referred to permanent disqualification as mandatory for a third offence against s 60(1) RTA, s 60(3)(c) being in this respect identical with s 63(2)(c).
7 The meaning and effect of s 63(2)(c) is plain. The words 'shall order' are mandatory. Accordingly, the sentencing magistrate had no option but to permanently disqualify the appellant from holding or obtaining a motor vehicle driver's licence on his third conviction for an offence against s 63(1) RTA.
8 Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
4
1