Sadler v Police - [2010] SASC 281

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
SADLER v POLICE
[2010] SASC 281
Judgment of The Honourable Justice White (ex tempore)
16 September 2010
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR REASONABLE CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER ROAD USERS
MAGISTRATES - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY - PROCEDURE - THE HEARING - PLEA AND STATEMENT OF DEFENCE - PLEA OF GUILTY - WHERE DEFENDANT NOT REPRESENTED
Appellant, who was unrepresented at first instance, pleaded guilty to driving without due care - the Special Justice recorded a conviction and imposed a fine of $200 for the offence - the appellant appealed against the recording of the conviction contending that the Special Justice had not explained that the Court could impose a penalty without recording a conviction nor the matters which would be relevant to a decision not to record a conviction.
Held: allowing the appeal, the Special Justice erred in failing to inform the appellant of the Court's power to refrain from recording a conviction - the checklist that the Special Justice had used in the sentencing process was flawed - checklists, whilst of some utility, should not be used to impose sentences in a formulaic way - appellant re-sentenced.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16, s 39, referred to.
Ivanoff v Linnane (1979) 20 SASR 279; Taylor v Police [1988] SASC 6540; Datson v Police [1999] SASC 59; McQuade v Police [1999] SASC 277; Cuthbert v Police [2003] SASC 55; Schmidt v Police [2005] SASC 482; Pollard v Police [2010] SASC 23; Geyer v Police [2004] SASC 220; Roder v Police [2000] SASC 432, considered.

SADLER v POLICE
[2010] SASC 281
Appeal from a Special Justice
WHITE J (ex tempore):

The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of driving without due care contrary to s 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The maximum penalty for this offence was a fine of $2,500. A Special Justice, sitting at Naracoorte, recorded a conviction and imposed a fine of $200. In addition, the Special Justice ordered the appellant to pay a total of $288 by way of costs and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Levy.
The appellant was unrepresented at the hearing before the Special Justice.
The appellant appeals against the recording of the conviction, but not against any other aspect of the sentence. He contends first that the Special Justice failed to inform him that the court could impose a penalty without recording a conviction and of the matters which he would need to establish in order to persuade the court to proceed in that way. Secondly, he submits that the Special Justice erred in any event by recording a conviction.
The offence occurred in the mid afternoon of 4 March 2010, one week after the appellant’s 20^th birthday. The appellant, an apprentice electrician, was driving a Mitsubishi van in Naracoorte. He turned from…

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 Sadler v Police 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: [2010] SASC 281
Decision Date: 16 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sadler was unrepresented in the Magistrates Court when they pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention. The Special Justice recorded a conviction and imposed a fine of $200. Sadler appealed the conviction, arguing that the Special Justice did not adequately explain the Court's discretion not to record a conviction or the factors that would be considered in such a decision.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Special Justice's failure to inform Sadler of the Court's discretion to refrain from recording a conviction constituted a procedural error. The court needed to determine if this procedural error warranted the appeal and if the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court found that the Special Justice had indeed erred in not informing Sadler of the Court's discretion. The court noted that the checklist used by the Special Justice was flawed, as checklists should not be used formulaically to impose sentences. The court emphasised the importance of explaining the Court's discretion to the defendant and the factors that would be considered in deciding not to record a conviction. The appeal was allowed, and Sadler was re-sentenced.

The court's decision highlights the need for Special Justices to ensure that defendants are aware of the Court's discretion to refrain from recording a conviction and to avoid using checklists in a formulaic way when imposing sentences.

Orders