Stoeckel v Police No. Scciv-02-206 - [2002] SASC 215

STOECKEL v POLICE
[2002] SASC 215
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

MULLIGHAN J The appellant pleaded guilty to having, on 4 October 2001, at Glenburnie in the South East, driven a motor vehicle on the Princes Highway without due care, contrary to s45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. She appeared before a Magistrate in the Magistrates Court at Mount Gambier on 22 January 2002 and was convicted and fined $200 and ordered to pay costs and levies amounting to a further $128.50. She was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for a period of 28 days to commence on 1 February 2002. She appeals against that sentence.
The appellant is aged 23 years and is a veterinary surgeon. She has been in practice at Mount Gambier, as from February 2001 when she graduated. She was not represented by a lawyer before the Magistrate. When the case was called on, she entered a plea of not guilty. She indicated that she proposed to plead not guilty and was referred to the duty solicitor. After taking advice from that solicitor she entered a plea of guilty and made some submissions on her own behalf.
Prior to pleading guilty and obtaining advice from the duty solicitor, she was informed by the Magistrate of the options available to him by way of penalty, which included disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle.
The Magistrate did not inform the appellant that he was minded to impose the order for disqualification of licence, although she was aware, from what he had said earlier, that that was an available option.
The grounds of the appeal are that the licence disqualification of 28 days is, in the circumstances, manifestly excessive, that the learned Magistrate erred in failing to warn her of the possibility of an order for disqualification and that he failed to take into account sufficiently, or at all, her need to hold a licence to carry out her occupation as a veterinary surgeon. I first deal with the second ground of appeal.
The learned Magistrate was aware that the appellant was a veterinary surgeon practising in the country. Although it appears that he may not have been informed of the extent of her need to drive a motor vehicle in the course of her work, he could hardly have failed to appreciate that the ability to drive a motor vehicle was important to her in her work. I appreciate that the Magistrate probably dealt with the appellant in the course of a busy list on a general day in the Magistrates Court at Mount Gambier. Nonetheless, I think he should have informed her that he was minded to disqualify her from driving and sought information from her which would be relevant to whether that order should be made. She is a young woman and being unrepresented it may be accepted that she did not fully appreciate the need to make submissions as to that matter.

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 Stoeckel v Police No. Scciv-02-206

Details

AGLC: Stoeckel v Police No. Scciv-02-206 [2002] SASC 215
Case: [2002] SASC 215
Decision Date: 17 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal case of Stoeckel v Police, the appellant, Stoeckel, challenges the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court at Mount Gambier for driving without due care, leading to a vehicle accident on the Princes Highway. Stoeckel, a 23-year-old veterinary surgeon, was fined $200, ordered to pay additional costs and levies, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for 28 days. Stoeckel appeals the disqualification, arguing it is excessively severe considering her need to drive for her occupation. The court must determine whether the sentence was appropriate, particularly the disqualification from driving, given Stoeckel's professional requirements.

The appeal raises two primary issues: first, whether the Magistrate erred in not warning Stoeckel about the possibility of a licence disqualification and, second, whether the disqualification was excessive given her need to drive for her occupation as a veterinary surgeon. The court considers whether the Magistrate should have informed Stoeckel about the proposed disqualification and sought relevant information. The court must also evaluate the proportionality and appropriateness of the 28-day disqualification in light of Stoeckel's professional obligations.

The court finds that the Magistrate erred in not informing Stoeckel of his intention to disqualify her from driving and in not seeking relevant submissions from her regarding the impact of such a disqualification. The court acknowledges the importance of Stoeckel's ability to drive for her work, which includes responding to calls at odd hours and visiting farming properties. The court concludes that the 28-day disqualification was excessive, given Stoeckel's age, occupation, and lack of prior convictions. The court also notes that the nature of the offence, which seems to stem from brief inattention, places it at the lower end of the seriousness scale for the offence of driving without due care.

The court quashes the 28-day disqualification order and allows the appeal on that ground. The court confirms the fine and costs and levies imposed by the Magistrate but finds that the disqualification was not justified given Stoeckel's circumstances. The appeal is allowed, and the disqualification order is quashed, while the other aspects of the sentence remain unchanged.

Orders