Robens v Sproule - [2021] ACTMC 8

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Robens v Sproule
Citation:	[2021] ACTMC 8
Hearing Date(s):	28 May 2021
DecisionDate:	28 May 2021
Before:	Magistrate Theakston
Decision:	1. The defendant is remanded to appear on 15 February 2023 at 9:30 am part-heard before Magistrate Theakston for sentence. 2. A Court Duty Report is ordered. 3. Bail is to continue.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive while disqualified – effects of mandatory disqualifications – mandatory considerations for a non-conviction order – proportionality
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 17, 31, 33 Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 32(1), 32(5), 32(7) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 69
Cases Cited:	Application by the Attorney General (No 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303; (2004) 61 NSWLR 305 Cobiac v Liddy [1969] HCA 26; [1969] 119 CLR 257 Naoumidis v Robens [2018] ACTSC 365 R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9 R v Jacky [2019] ACTSC 123 R v Pelecky (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 370 Roseby v Harman [2014] ACTSC 125 Smith v Stivala [2018] ACTSC 309; 341 FLR 359 Watson v Stiles [2021] ACTMC 2
Parties:	Paul Robens (Informant) Hayden Sproule (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel K Sheridan (Informant) Self-represented (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Self-represented (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC 5372 of 2021

MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Introduction

From time to time a defendant comes before the court where the application of the Territory’s mandatory sentencing provisions would produce a disproportionate and counter-productive outcome. This is such a matter.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of driving while disqualified. A conviction in this matter would trigger an automatic disqualification for a further two years, and that term would be cumulative on his current disqualifications.

Circumstances

During the afternoon of 19 May 2021, police observed the defendant driving his utility on the Monaro Highway. He was stopped and admitted to being disqualified from driving. There was nothing aggravating about the offending. There was nothing remarkable about the way he was driving, there were no passengers in the car and there was no associated consequence of his driving, such as a risk to the community or an accident. He was arrested, later charged and, after a couple of hours, released on bail from police custody to attend court on a later date.

On 28 May 2021 and at the defendant’s first appearance before the court, he pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to sentence.

The defendant is 25 years of age and shares equal care of two preschool aged children with his ex-partner. He is self employed as a mobile mechanic and, while being disqualified from driving, employs a driver for the purpose of collecting parts, travelling to customers’ locations and driving customers’ cars.

At court, the defendant spontaneously conceded his driving history was poor and his previous offending was due to his previous poor attitude in that regard. His history…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Robens v Sproule

Details

AGLC: Robens v Sproule [2021] ACTMC 8
Case: [2021] ACTMC 8
Decision Date: 28 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robens v Sproule involved the defendant, Mr. Sproule, who was charged with driving while disqualified. The case was heard by Magistrate Theakston of the Magistrates’ Court. Mr. Sproule pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the implications of the mandatory disqualification period and whether a non-conviction order would be appropriate.

The central legal issues before the court were the mandatory considerations that must be applied when sentencing for driving while disqualified, particularly the impact of the disqualification period and the proportionality of the sentence. The court also had to consider whether a non-conviction order was suitable given the circumstances of the offence and Mr. Sproule’s criminal history.

The court determined that the mandatory disqualification period required by law had to be imposed as it was a statutory requirement. However, the court recognised that the defendant's prior good character and the circumstances of the offence suggested that a non-conviction order might be appropriate. The court noted the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the offence and to serve as a deterrent without unduly punishing the defendant. Ultimately, the court decided that a non-conviction order would be suitable, balancing the mandatory requirements with the circumstances of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sproule be remanded to appear for sentence on 15 February 2023 at 9:30 am for a part-heard hearing before Magistrate Theakston. A Court Duty Report was also ordered, and bail was to continue.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is remanded to appear on 15 February 2023 at 9:30 am part-heard before Magistrate Theakston for sentence.

2. A Court Duty Report is ordered.

3. Bail is to continue.

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.