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:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Section 62 (1) of the Road Transport (General) Act1999 (ACT) (the Act) provides:

(1)If a court convicts a person  of an offence of culpable driving, the person is automatically disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence—

(a)for a first offender—for 6 months or, if the court orders a longer period, the longer period; or

(b)for a repeat offender—for 24 months or, if the court orders a longer period, the longer period.

1. Section 62 (1) does not restrict the court to a term of six months, nor does it provide that six months is the norm. Rather, the purpose of fixing an automatic period of disqualification is to provide for an absolute minimum that a person should not hold a driver’s licence. The assessment of the actual period of licence disqualification to be applied to a particular offender is one to be undertaken with regard to both the circumstances of the offence and those of the offender. It is part and parcel of the exercise of the sentencing discretion.

1. The fixing of a period of 18 months in circumstances where the culpable driving called for an immediate custodial sentence is amply justified.

1. It is said that licence disqualification in the instant case will bear particularly harshly upon the appellant whose livelihood is probably restricted to him being able to exercise driving skills. However, there is provision for a restricted licence to be granted under the Act, limited to circumstances which would entitle an applicant to maintain employment. The grant of such a restricted licence can only be made for the period in excess of the minimum period (see s 67 of the Act). At the time of instituting this appeal, the Magistrate had apparently said that he would be unlikely to grant a restricted licence to the appellant. However, when this matter came before this court it was adjourned to enable the appellant to make such an application which he did and which was successful in that a restricted licence was granted enabling him to drive to and from his home and work place and otherwise to drive heavy vehicles.

1. It is now said that this restricted licence is of limited efficacy as far as the appellant is concerned as a restricted licence is not recognised in New South Wales and, accordingly, the whole issue of the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence should be revisited. 

1. This is a completely mistaken submission.  The provision of the licensing of drivers is part of a system of nationally consistent road transport laws.  In the ACT the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) is part of that system. Section 11 of that Act provides for mutual recognition of driver licences issued by licensing authorities of other jurisdictions. Its counterpart in New South Wales is the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 (NSW). Section 11 (1) of that Act provides:

Mutual recognition

(1)The Authority must, in accordance with the regulations, recognise: 

(a)driver licences issued by another jurisdiction, and

(b)licence conditions that apply to those licences, other than conditions that apply only in circumstances that are unique to that other jurisdiction or that are prescribed by the regulations.

1. The submissions put on behalf of the appellant would substitute the definition of “driver licences” in the dictionary to the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 (NSW) but that definition is directed to the driver licences issued under the Regulations under that Act. It is quite clear that the expression in s 11(1) “driver licences issued by another jurisdiction” has nothing to do with that definition. In the present case, a restricted licence issued by the ACT Magistrates Court is a driver licence issued by another jurisdiction, namely the ACT, and I see no reason why such licences are not recognised in New South Wales in accordance with s 11(1) of the Act.

1. I am satisfied that there is no substance in the view that a restricted licence issued under the provisions of the ACT legislation will not be recognised in New South Wales.

1. This being so, there is nothing further that can be put to suggest that there has been any error in imposing the penalty and licence disqualification that was imposed by the Magistrate.

1. The appeal must be dismissed.

   I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Gray.

   Associate:

   Date: 14 September 2006

Counsel for the appellant:  Mr D Perkins
Solicitor for the appellant:  Darryl Perkins Solicitor
Counsel for the respondent:  Mr J Lawton
Solicitor for the respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)
Date of hearing:  17 July, 7 August and 8 September 2006
Date of judgment:  8 September 2006