Ronald Maxwell Hughes v David Andrew Grieve - [2006] ACTSC 92

RONALD MAXWELL HUGHES v DAVID ANDREW GRIEVE
[2006] ACTSC 92 (8 September 2006)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Road Transport (General) Act1999 (ACT), s 62(1), s 67

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 11

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 (NSW), s 11

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 91 of 2005

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 8 September 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SCA 91 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:RONALD MAXWELL HUGHES
Appellant

AND:DAVID ANDREW GRIEVE
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  8 September 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

Ronald Maxwell Hughes (the appellant) appeals against the severity of sentences imposed upon him on 27 September 2005 in the ACT Magistrates Court in respect of a charge of negligently causing grievous bodily harm and in respect of a charge of causing a public mischief. As far as the latter charge was concerned, he was convicted without passing sentence and released upon a recognisance to be of good behaviour for six months. He does not seek to challenge that order. On the former charge, he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be released after serving four months and upon entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for a period of three years. His driver’s licence was disqualified for 18 months.

The charges in respect of which the sentences were imposed arose out of an incident which occurred on 26 September 2004. The appellant, who was driving a taxi, drove in pursuit of two men who had left the taxi without paying the fare. One of the men was in the process of climbing over a fence when the taxi hit the fence and that person’s leg, and ultimately the taxi collided with the wall of a nearby residence. The victim sustained a complex fracture of the mid-left foot joints. The driving caused him serious and permanent injury. These facts constituted the offence to which the appellant pleaded guilty of negligently causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant subsequently gave a false account to the police concerning the incident and this gave rise to the offence of causing a public mischief.

The appeal proceeded before me on the limited basis of what was said to be the severity of the licence disqualification imposed upon the appellant in the circumstances. It was submitted that although there is provision for an automatic six months licence disqualification in the case of conviction for culpable driving offences, in this case the Magistrate imposed a further 12 months above that without giving reasons. The appellant’s written submission, which I had before me, seems to imply that this was an error on the Magistrate’s part and in all the circumstances to do so was to impose a manifestly excessive punishment.

Section 62 (1) of the Road Transport…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ronald Maxwell Hughes v David Andrew Grieve and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] ACTSC 92
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Maxwell Hughes appeals against the severity of sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, specifically challenging the 18-month disqualification of his driver's licence. Hughes was convicted of negligently causing grievous bodily harm and of causing a public mischief, following an incident where he drove his taxi in pursuit of two men who had not paid their fare, leading to a collision with a fence and a nearby residence, resulting in severe injuries to one of the men. In addition to a 12-month imprisonment with a four-month non-custodial period, Hughes was disqualified from holding a driver's licence for 18 months.

The legal issues before the court centred on the severity of the licence disqualification imposed by the Magistrate, particularly whether it constituted a manifestly excessive punishment. Hughes's primary contention was that the Magistrate imposed a 12-month disqualification beyond the statutory minimum of six months without adequate reasoning. Furthermore, Hughes argued that the licence disqualification would significantly impact his livelihood and that a restricted licence granted by the Magistrate was ineffective as it was not recognised in New South Wales.

The court examined the provisions of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), noting that while the Act establishes a minimum six-month disqualification for culpable driving offences, it does not preclude a court from imposing a longer period. The court found that the Magistrate had exercised proper discretion in considering both the circumstances of the offence and the offender, justifying the 18-month disqualification. The court also addressed Hughes's argument regarding the recognition of restricted licences in New South Wales, confirming that the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) and its counterpart in New South Wales provide for mutual recognition of driver licences issued by other jurisdictions, including restricted licences. Therefore, the court concluded that the Magistrate's imposition of the 18-month disqualification was neither erroneous nor manifestly excessive.

Orders