Senderowski v Mothersole

Case [2013] ACTSC 217


ROBERT SENDEROWSKI v DARREN STEPHEN MOTHERSOLE
 [2013] ACTSC 217 (10 September 2013)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Interference with Discretion of Court Below – appeal still on foot despite informal indication of withdrawal – sentence for Level 4 drink-driving offence manifestly excessive – Magistrate erred in setting licence disqualification period by deducting from default disqualification period – appellant re-sentenced. 

Mwauluka v Turkich [2013] ACTSC 1
Newham v Cogle [2012] ACTSC 76
Piper v Hall [2013] ACTSC 207

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 126 of 2011

Judge:             Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              10 September 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 126 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

ROBERT SENDEROWSKI

Appellant

AND:

DARREN STEPHEN MOTHERSOLE

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  10 September 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal is upheld to the extent necessary to set aside the four year disqualification period (in relation to the Level 4 PCA offence) imposed by the sentencing Magistrate.

  1. A new disqualification period of 12 months is imposed starting from 10 September 2013 and ending on 9 September 2014.

  1. The six-month term of imprisonment and the 12 months concurrent disqualification on the drive while suspended offence are confirmed but have already been served.

Introduction

  1. Robert Senderowski was summonsed to appear in court on a charge that on 5 October 2011 being a repeat offender and also being a special driver, he drove a motor vehicle with Level 4 alcohol on his breath.  Mr Senderowski was a “special driver” because he was at the time disqualified from driving.  He was also charged with driving while disqualified.

  1. On 8 December 2011 Mr Senderowski was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months, to be served in full-time custody from that date.  He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four years, that period to begin after the end of the disqualification that had been ordered on an earlier charge and was to expire on 19 December 2011.

The appeal

  1. On 29 December 2011, Mr Senderowski filed a notice of appeal that he had prepared himself, which specified “severity of sentence” as his ground of appeal, noting also that the sentence was too harsh and that he would have preferred weekend detention.

  1. The appeal was listed for hearing on 15 March 2012, but the Court Registry received an informal indication on behalf of Mr Senderowski that he wished to withdraw his appeal, and it seems that the listed hearing was removed from the court lists.

  1. In February 2013, after Mr Senderowski acquired a new solicitor, the appeal came before the Deputy Registrar and in due course it was docketed to me.

  1. Despite the indication of a wish to withdraw the appeal, no formal notice of withdrawal was ever filed, and it was unclear whether the…

Continue reading Senderowski v Mothersole

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Senderowski v Mothersole [2013] ACTSC 217
Case
[2013] ACTSC 217
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Senderowski appealed against his conviction and sentence for drink-driving and driving while his licence was suspended. The respondent, Mothersole, argued the appeal on the grounds that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and that the Magistrate erred in calculating the disqualification period. The appeal was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The central issues for the court were whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive, and whether there was an error in the calculation of the disqualification period.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the appellant's otherwise good character, his remorse, and the fact that he had not driven for over two years prior to the offence. The court held that the Magistrate had erred in calculating the disqualification period by deducting from the default period, which is not permissible. The court noted that while the appellant had informally indicated a wish to withdraw the appeal, the appeal was still on foot, and thus the court had the jurisdiction to hear it. The court further held that the six-month term of imprisonment and the concurrent disqualification period for the drive while suspended offence were appropriate, and had already been served.

The appeal was upheld to the extent necessary to set aside the disqualification period imposed by the Magistrate. The court imposed a new disqualification period of 12 months, starting from 10 September 2013 and ending on 9 September 2014. The six-month term of imprisonment and the 12 months concurrent disqualification on the drive while suspended offence were confirmed, but had already been served.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld to the extent necessary to set aside the four year disqualification period (in relation to the Level 4 PCA offence) imposed by the sentencing Magistrate.

2. A new disqualification period of 12 months is imposed starting from 10 September 2013 and ending on 9 September 2014.

3. The six-month term of imprisonment and the 12 months concurrent disqualification on the drive while suspended offence are confirmed but have already been served.

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.