Sneddon v Commissioner of Police (Qld)

[2003] QDC 571

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Sneddon v. Commissioner of Police (Qld) [2003] QDC 571
PARTIES:	DAVID ROBERT SNEDDON

Applicant

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (QLD)

Respondent

FILE NO:	618 / 2002
PROCEEDING:	Application for Removal of Licence Disqualification
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:	15 January 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	8 January 2003
JUDGE:	Newton DCJ
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law – driving offences – dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm whilst adversely affected by an intoxicating substance
Vehicles and traffic – licensing of drivers – application for removal of disqualification – s 131 of the Transport Operation (Road Use Management) Act 1995 – where applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence absolutely – evidence of change of attitude by applicant towards his responsibilities as a motorist – evidence of family and employment difficulties of applicant arising since making of order of disqualification – where serious nature of offences outweigh factors pertaining to personal situation of applicant
Cases considered:
Burton v Commissioner of Police (Qld) (1990) 10 MVR 329 R v Shirley [1969] 1 WLR 1357
COUNSEL:	Applicant in person Ms C Harrison – respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Office – respondent

[1]  This is an application by David Robert Sneddon, for the removal of a licence disqualification. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Southport on 12 August 1999 to three counts of dangerous driving and one count of dangerous driving with a circumstance of aggravation, namely, that at the time he was adversely affected by alcohol. The blood alcohol concentration was, in fact, .174 per cent.

[2]  In my sentencing remarks I observed that “The description given by the Crown

Prosecutor of the manner in which you drove your vehicle on these occasions is horrifying. It seems that you have little or no regard for the safety of yourself, your passengers, passengers in other vehicles, pedestrians and pursuing police officers…”.

[3]  The first charge of dangerous driving relates to an incident at Beechmont which occurred on 8 February 1996, and involves deliberately aggressive conduct towards the occupants of a Gemini sedan, who were subjected to threats, yelling and swearing from persons within the vehicle the applicant was driving. The Gemini was struck with a stick wielded by one of the applicant’s passengers and bottles were thrown at it. A concerted effort was made by the applicant to force the Gemini off the road by tailgating it and proceeding around a roundabout in an anticlockwise direction. Eventually the Gemini was passed and the applicant blocked its passage. The driver of the Gemini was fortunately able to reverse and then make his way to a telephone. The applicant followed the driver but fortunately there was no further violence and the occupants of the Gemini (three adults and a baby) managed to drive away. This incident occurred at approximately 1 a.m. on a very hilly and narrow road with steep drops on the side. The applicant told police that he had no memory of the incident.

[4]  The second charge of dangerous driving relates to an incident in the Mermaid Waters area on 2 October 1997 and involves a police pursuit. As police approached the applicant’s vehicle wanting to speak to him, he simply drove off. The pursuit that ensued took place at about 5 p.m. along the Nerang Broadbeach Road which is notoriously busy. The applicant was seen to travel on the left-hand side verge, forcing other vehicles to veer to the middle of the road. The vehicle was exceeding the speed limit and was seen to overtake vehicles on the left, narrowly missing other vehicles and trees. The applicant did reduce speed at traffic lights at the Rio Vista Boulevard intersection, although the lights fortunately were green when he proceeded through that intersection. Subsequently, the applicant’s vehicle was observed weaving in and out of the lanes and swerving in and out of traffic in the vicinity of the Bermuda Street intersection. It was observed at Carrara passing vehicles on the left, half on the verge and half on the road. The vehicle was seen to mount the kerb near Market Street and again the occupants in the applicant’s vehicle were seen hurling beer bottles from the car at other vehicles. When spoken to by the police in relation to these events, the applicant again denied having any memory of the incident.

[5]  The charge contained on the ex officio indictment in many ways discloses even more serious examples of dangerous driving on the part of the applicant. On 23 March 1998 at about 11.30 p.m., witnesses observed the applicant turn his vehicle sharply onto a footpath when approached by a police car. In doing so the applicant’s vehicle hit a garbage bin and very nearly hit the police vehicle. The applicant ignored the lights and siren on the police vehicle and was seen on several occasions to give insulting gestures out of the car window to the police. Witnesses observed the applicant’s vehicle to then travel at approximately 110 kph in an 80 kph zone. The vehicle then travelled on the incorrect side of the road, increasing its speed to 160 kph before braking heavily and performing a 180-degree turn. A passenger in the vehicle was seen to make an obscene gesture to the police at this time. The vehicle then travelled onto the incorrect side of a narrow road at speeds between 140-160 kph before almost being brought to a stop and then driving off, reaching a speed of 120 kph with a further obscene gesture being made to the following police. An oncoming vehicle was forced to take evasive action on a bend by swerving off the road to the left. The applicant then travelled through an intersection at 80 kph and also proceeded through a red light at a speed of 100 kph before travelling in a 60 kph zone at a speed of 140 kph. The vehicle was seen to travel on the incorrect side of traffic islands, failed to slow down at Give-way signs and to proceed through intersection at speeds of between 80-100 kph. It was then seen to travel through an intersection and around a roundabout at a “substantial speed” with no apparent effort to slow down. It then proceeded through another red light whilst travelling on the incorrect side of the road before driving off at speeds of up to 140 kph. Again, obscene gestures were made to the pursuing police. The applicant eventually stopped his vehicle in a vacant allotment and he and his passengers ran off. The applicant was subsequently located and gave as his explanation for his manner of driving that he simply wanted to get away from the police.

[6]  The fourth charge of dangerous driving includes a circumstance of aggravation, namely that the applicant was adversely affected by alcohol. On 28 June 1998 at about 6.30 p.m. at Gatton the applicant’s vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle at an intersection after travelling at high speed through a Give- way sign without slowing down. The applicant left the scene of the accident but later surrendered to police. Fortunately, the occupants of the other vehicle were not injured. As noted previously, the blood alcohol concentration of the applicant at the relevant time was .174 per cent, which is well over three times the legal limit.

[7]  Two of the offences described above were committed in flagrant breach of an intensive correction order, although it seems that the applicant’s response to supervision during the period of that order was satisfactory.

[8]  The applicant’s criminal history reveals entries in respect of receiving, break enter and steal, stealing, wilful damage to property, discharging a loaded firearm in the night-time with intent to cause alarm and possessing a weapon whilst not being the holder of a licence.

[9]  The applicant’s traffic history contains several entries for exceeding the speed limit and also for failing to stop at a Stop sign, as well as other infringements.

[10]For the offences described above the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 15 months for an operative period of five years. He was disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.

[11]In his affidavit filed on 19 July 2002 in support of his application, the applicant states as follows:

“…

3.           I am 25 years of age, and was 23 years of age at the time of incarceration.

4. After I was convicted I went through a lot of emotional and psychological changes. I had the opportunity to reflect on my actions and how my actions can have serious consequences to me and others around me. Whilst in prison I took steps to address my offending behaviour by doing courses such as substance abuse educational programs, M A G Y I C and the work program. I found these to be very educational and beneficial to me as a person and as a citizen. I was always eager to learn and benefit from the knowledge that was passed down to me. The M A G Y I C program was a very intense program and its design and structure was very unique. It is a management alternative for youths in custody. Only twelve inmates are chosen to participate in this extensive two-month lifestyle adjustment, where you have no contact with friends or relatives for twelve months. The twelve of us put our lives into each others hands, confronted our fears and acknowledge the suffering we had caused to the community, family and friends because of our wrongdoings. We went through many long and enduring twelve on twelve counselling and lifestyle adjustment courses. I have never experienced such a bond and different outlook on life thanks to the 11 other M A G Y I C inmates and the six officers from the M A G Y I C program. After I graduated with honours I became involved in the W O R C program. I felt a sense of achievement as I was now doing work for various communities and repaying for my foolishness.

5.           After being released from prison on the 8th December 2000, I looked at life

with a different point of view and was overwhelmed to spend Christmas with my
family.

6. Since my release from prison I have been living in a wonderful defacto

relationship with Katharine Crosbie and our 2 year old daughter Annalyse. Katharine
and I are planning to get married and buy our first home together within 2 years.

7. I also have two girls of my own who reside with my mother Linda Sneddon at 19 Viburnum Street, Stephens. I would like to help my mother out more as she is going through a rough time at present with her mum, my grandmother, who had lived with our family for 18 years has not long passed away and my dad, Robert Sneddon, has disappeared and is now a missing person. Support with even the smallest of tasks would help but distance is always a problem.

8. I was employed from Palm Beach Pools from February to April 2001 but was unable to continue due to constant travel problems. I remained unemployed for some time. Not long ago I commenced to work two days a week with a company, World of Maths, on Brisbane Road as a wood engineer. Katharine works at Sanctuary Cove three days a week and our little girl Annalyse goes to day care three days a week.

9. As a result of not having a driver’s licence I have had to struggle between Katharine’s days at work or make it on my own to work. I also miss out on visiting my other two children regularly as I do not have a driver’s licence to do so. I do feel having my licence will help my mother who solely cares for my two children by allowing me to help care for them and spend more time with them as they need a strong father figure in their lives. I also believe that having a licence would advance my present employment, thus allowing my fiancee and I to be financially stable enough to support my family properly and purchase our own home.

…”.

[12]The respondent acknowledges and adopts the matters contained in the material filed on behalf of the applicant concerning the present personal circumstances of the applicant. I can see no reason to reject or discount any of the matters contained in the applicant’s affidavit relating to his current situation with respect to family and employment.

[13]The circumstances to be considered by a Court in an application of this nature are set out in s 131(2C) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 which provides that:

“Upon hearing any such application the Judge of the Supreme Court or District Court or justices constituting the court may, as is thought proper, having regard to the character of the person disqualified and the person’s conduct subsequent to the order, the nature of the offence, and any other circumstances of the case, either by order remove the disqualification as from such date as may be specified in the order or refuse the application.”

[14]The Courts have also deemed it appropriate to consider the effect that long periods of disqualification may have upon the reintegration of the applicant into the community (see R v Shirley [1969] 1 WLR 1357 at 1358, as adopted by Williams J in Burton v Commissioner of Police (Qld) (1990) 10 MVR 329).

[15]I am prepared to accept that the applicant would better meet his obligations to both his employer and his family were he to succeed in this application. No doubt the continuing disqualification has indeed restricted his ability to reintegrate into the community. There is also no conduct subsequent to the date of disqualification which might adversely affect the application. However, the extremely serious nature of the offences themselves discloses highly dangerous and wilful conduct on the part of the applicant who demonstrated complete disregard for the safety of other road users including, on two occasions, police officers who were attempting to apprehend him.

[16]Ultimately, I am driven to conclude that the factors which favour allowing the application are strongly outweighed by the serious nature of the applicant’s conduct in all of the circumstances. The safety of the community generally is a factor which in a case of this kind must be given priority over an applicant’s personal circumstances. I have little confidence that in the relatively short period of time (just over three years) since the order for disqualification was made, the applicant has developed a more responsible attitude towards driving. A more significant period of disqualification from driving is called for in this case, and the application must, for these reasons, be refused.

- - - - -