Sanderson v TC - [2018] NTSC 82

CITATION:Sanderson v TC [2018] NTSC 82
PARTIES:SANDERSON, Melissa Deborah

v
TC (A Youth)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SPECIAL CASE stated from YOUTH JUSTICE COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:138 of 2018 (21755740)
DELIVERED ON:  30 November 2018
HEARING DATE:  31 July 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DRIVING OFFENCES – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT
Special case stated by the Youth Justice Court – whether Youth Justice Court must impose at least the mandatory driver’s licence disqualification as set out in s 22(3)(a) of Traffic Act – s 22(3) of Traffic Act operates so that if court finds person guilty of relevant offence person's licence to drive automatically cancelled and person disqualified from obtaining a licence for the minimum period – term “person” not limited to adult offenders – Traffic Act comprehends the application of mandatory minimum disqualification periods to youth offenders – disqualification of a youth’s licence not a matter of discretion which may be dealt with under s 88 of the Youth Justice Act – nothing express in Part 6 of the Youth Justice Act which would militate against the application of a mandatory disqualification period – Part 6 of the Youth Justice Act has no qualifying, limiting or displacing operation in those circumstances.
Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act (NT), s 6
Traffic Act (NT) s 22, s 34, s 38
Youth Justice Act (NT) s 6, s 18, s 60, s 71, s 83, s 88
Abbott v Wilson [2017] NTSC 50, Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Kmetyk [2018] NSWCA 156, H, RJ v Police [2005] SASC 347, Palling v Corfield (1970) 123 CLR 52, R v Bazley (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, Phillips CJ, Batt JA and Vincent AJA, 21 August 1997), R v Franklin [2009] VSCA 77, R v George (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, O’Brian and Gray JJ, 21 September 1989), R v Tantrum (1989) 11 Cr App Rep (S) 348, R v Tran (2002) 4 VR 457, Wynbyne v Marshall (1997) 7 NTLR 97, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Complainant:  I Rowbottam
Defendant:M Aust
Solicitors:
Complainant:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  GRA1822
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Sanderson v TC [2018] NTSC 82

138 of 2018 (21755740)
BETWEEN:

MELISSA DEBORAH SANDERSON

Complainant

AND:

TC

Defendant

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 30 November 2018)
[1]This is a special case stated by the Youth Justice Court for the opinion of the Supreme Court pursuant to s 60 of the Youth Justice Act (NT). The question of law reserved is:
When imposing sentence on a youth for an offence against s 22 of the Traffic Act (NT) must the Youth Justice Court impose at least the mandatory driver’s licence disqualification as set out in s 22(3)(a)…

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 Sanderson v TC

Details

AGLC: Sanderson v TC [2018] NTSC 82
Case: [2018] NTSC 82
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sanderson v TC involves a youth offender who was convicted of a driving offence and the subsequent implications of the Traffic Act on the mandatory disqualification from obtaining a driver’s licence. The dispute was brought before the Youth Justice Court, which had to determine the appropriate legal framework for imposing the mandatory driver’s licence disqualification. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Youth Justice Court is obligated to impose at least the mandatory driver’s licence disqualification as outlined in section 22(3)(a) of the Traffic Act, even in cases involving youth offenders.

The court examined the language and intent of section 22(3) of the Traffic Act, which states that upon finding a person guilty of a specified offence, their licence to drive is automatically cancelled, and they are disqualified from obtaining a licence for a minimum period. The term "person" in this context was not limited to adult offenders, suggesting that the Traffic Act applies the mandatory minimum disqualification periods to youth offenders as well. The court further considered whether the Youth Justice Act, specifically Part 6, could override or mitigate the effect of the mandatory disqualification period imposed by the Traffic Act. It concluded that there was no explicit provision within Part 6 of the Youth Justice Act that would counter the application of the mandatory disqualification period to youth offenders.

In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that the Traffic Act's imposition of mandatory minimum disqualification periods is not subject to the discretionary powers granted under section 88 of the Youth Justice Act. Therefore, the Youth Justice Court is not empowered to deviate from the mandatory minimum disqualification period prescribed by the Traffic Act when dealing with youth offenders. The court's ruling affirmed that Part 6 of the Youth Justice Act does not have any qualifying, limiting, or displacing effect in circumstances where the Traffic Act mandates a minimum disqualification period for driver’s licence disqualification.

The final outcome of the case was that the Youth Justice Court must adhere to the mandatory minimum disqualification period set out in the Traffic Act, even when sentencing youth offenders. This decision ensures consistency in the application of driving offence penalties, reinforcing the legislative intent behind mandatory disqualification periods for driver’s licences.

Orders