Sideridis v Police - [2001] SASC 90

SIDERIDIS v POLICE
[2001] SASC 90

Magistrate’s Appeal

1................ MARTIN J......... The appellant pleaded guilty to a number of offences. In addition to various fines, two sentences of imprisonment were imposed and suspended. The appellant appeals against the sentences of imprisonment on the basis that they were manifestly excessive.

On 11 February 2000 the appellant used a slip lane on Lonsdale Road at Sheidow Park to overtake another vehicle. In the process he cut sharply in front of the vehicle that he overtook and then travelled at 120 k/ph in a 100 k/ph zone. The vehicle he was driving was unregistered. When stopped by the police, the appellant denied the allegations and told the police they were stupid. His demeanour was aggressive and uncooperative. Pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, the Magistrate imposed a fine of $200.
On 21 February 2000 the appellant attended at a Centrelink office and attempted to obtain a payment or benefit. He became upset and started yelling at the staff. He constantly used a four letter word in abusing the staff. His behaviour distressed the employee who was attempting to serve him. When spoken to by the police, the appellant responded that all he did was swear to himself in a mumble. For the offence of disorderly behaviour, the Magistrate imposed a fine of $200.
On 5 April 2000 the appellant drove onto the front lawn of a private premises because he was having a dispute with a female occupant. He deliberately spun the wheels on the lawn in the process of doing what could be described as a “burn out”. Wheel ruts were left in the lawn. When police spoke to the appellant on 18 June 2000, the appellant admitted deliberately driving a vehicle onto the lawn. He said he did so after receiving a disturbing phone call from one of the occupants. He described what he did as “one hell of a donut” and said he went around the lawn about three times in order to annoy the people who live at the premises. The appellant knew the occupants were present at the time. In respect of the offences of being unlawfully on premises and damaging property, the Magistrate imposed a sentence of imprisonment for one month which was suspended.
The final group of offences occurred during the afternoon of 8 June 2000. The appellant rode his skate board east along the carriageway of Rundle Street, Adelaide and passed a police vehicle on the left-hand side of that vehicle. After the appellant crossed Frome Street, the police lost sight of him briefly. They then observed him walking east on the road with the skateboard under his arm. When the appellant saw the police vehicle, he again started riding the skateboard and, as he crossed Rundle Street, he called out to the police “can’t stop, gotta go”. The police eventually spoke with him on Rundle Street. The appellant gave a false name and address. When the police asked him…

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 Sideridis v Police

Details

AGLC: Sideridis v Police [2001] SASC 90
Case: [2001] SASC 90
Decision Date: 29 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sideridis v Police is an appeal by the appellant, Sideridis, against sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate. The appellant had pleaded guilty to several offences, including speeding, driving without due care, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, disorderly behaviour, unlawful presence on premises, damaging property, refusal to provide name and address, and offensive language. Two sentences of imprisonment were imposed and suspended, which the appellant challenges as manifestly excessive. The primary legal issue in this case is whether the Magistrate's imposition of a single sentence of imprisonment for multiple offences, some of which are not punishable by imprisonment, was appropriate under the relevant statute. The court held that the Magistrate erred in imposing a single penalty of imprisonment for offences that included those punishable by fine only. The court found that Section 18A of the Sentencing Act was inapplicable in this context, as previously held by Duggan J in Hermel v Police. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the Magistrate's orders and impose new penalties, including fines and a suspended sentence with conditions.

The court's reasoning was based on the need for personal deterrence, given the appellant's extensive history of offending and disregard for the law. Despite some inappropriate remarks made by the Magistrate, the court found that these did not affect the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court allowed the appeal and imposed a new sentence, including a fine for certain offences, a suspended sentence of 14 days for others, and conditions such as supervision by a community corrections officer and community service. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the appellant's underlying issues, including anger management and substance abuse, to prevent future offending.

Orders