Stanischewski v Trenerry - [2001] NTSC 50

Stanischewski v Trenerry [2001] NTSC 50
PARTIES:STANISCHEWSKI, Kevin
v

TRENERRY, Robin Laurence

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA13 of 2001
DELIVERED:  28 June 2001
HEARING DATES:  22 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL
Justices – appeal against sentence – driving whilst disqualified – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Justices Act 1928 (NT)
Traffic Act 1987 (NT), s 31(1)
Salmon v Chute (1994) 94 NTR 1, approved
Raggett, Douglas & Miller (1990) 50 A Crim R 41, approved
Cransen v R (1936) 55 CLR 519, approved
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499, approved
Police v Cadd (1997) 94 A Crim R 466, approved
Maxwell (1998) 102 A Crim R 374, distinguished

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:M Johnson
Respondent: A Elliott

Solicitors:
Appellant:NTLAC
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:        B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0115
Number of pages:  11

Mar0115
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Stanischewski v Trenerry [2001] NTSC 50
No. JA13 of 2001

BETWEEN:
KEVIN STANISCHEWSKI

Appellant
AND:
ROBIN LAURENCE TRENERRY

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 28 June 2001)

Appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of Darwin on 16 February 2001 for that on 13 June 1996 being a person who was disqualified from holding a driver’s licence drove a motor vehicle in a public place, namely, East Point Reserve and when required by member of the Police Force to give his full name and address, gave a false name and address.

The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of four months to commence from the date upon which he had been taken into custody, namely, 13 December 2000. His Worship confirmed that when fixing the penalty he had taken into account abolition of remissions provided for in the Sentencing Act, meaning that the nominal sentence before that reduction was six months imprisonment. No part of the sentence was suspended.
The appellant filed no written submissions or list of authorities as required by Practice Direction No. 6 of 2001, but counsel for the respondent did not object to the matter proceeding in their absence. I take this opportunity to again remind practitioners of that Direction.
The admitted facts giving rise to the offences are that late on the afternoon of 13 June 1996, the defendant was driving a motor vehicle at East Point Reserve. There were two passengers. He was apprehended by plain clothes police in relation to another matter and when uniform police arrived and asked his name he said “William Stanischewski”. The appellant and the passengers were asked to identify the driver of the vehicle and the appellant said that he was the driver. He later corrected his name to tell the truth, and produced identification to verify it. A check of the police system revealed that he had been disqualified from driving a motor vehicle and when…

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 Stanischewski v Trenerry

Details

AGLC: Stanischewski v Trenerry [2001] NTSC 50
Case: [2001] NTSC 50
Decision Date: 28 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stanischewski v Trenerry, the Court of Appeal was called upon to review an appeal against sentence handed down to the applicant, Stanischewski, who had been convicted for driving while disqualified. The appeal centred on whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The primary judge had sentenced Stanischewski to a period of imprisonment, a substantial fine, and an extended disqualification from driving, which the applicant argued was disproportionately severe given the circumstances of the offence and his personal situation.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors including the nature and circumstances of the offence, Stanischewski's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The Court was required to determine if the penalty imposed was so disproportionate that it could be described as manifestly excessive. The applicant's counsel contended that the sentence did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors and was therefore beyond the range of acceptable punishments for the offence committed.

The Court of Appeal, after careful consideration of the submissions and the relevant authorities, determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the primary judge had appropriately balanced the various factors, including the seriousness of the offence, Stanischewski's previous criminal record, and the need for general deterrence. The Court concluded that the penalty was within the range of acceptable punishments for the offence and did not constitute an abuse of the sentencing discretion. As such, the appeal was dismissed. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and justifiable in light of the circumstances of each case, but found that the sentence in this instance was not excessive.

Orders