Thompson v Steele - [2025] ACTSC 187

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Thompson v Steele
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 187
Hearing Date:	7 May 2025
Decision Date:	7 May 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party has liberty to apply within fourteen days for any order required by reason of the operation of the stay pending appeal under s 216 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).
Catchwords:	APPEAL – APPEAL FROM ACT MAGISTRATES COURT – Traffic offences – two charges of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid – appeal against length of disqualification period – appeal on ground that magistrate used ‘default’ period of disqualification as a starting point for sentence rather than a process of instinctive synthesis – magistrate balanced considerations of protection of the community with the offender’s subjective circumstances – magistrate did undertake instinctive synthesis – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 25 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 84A Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 216 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), ss 4F, 20(1), 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 41AB Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 69
Cases Cited:	Tui v McLucas [2024] ACTSC 164
Parties:	Kelly Ann Thompson ( Appellant) Kristen Anne Steele ( First Respondent) Samuel Weick (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel J O’Keefe ( Appellant) M Lucero ( First and Second Respondent)
Solicitors Legal On London ( Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( First and Second Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 49 of 2024
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Special Magistrate Wilson Date of Decision: 30 September 2024 Case Title: Steele v Thompson Court File Numbers: 243649, 243674

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․This is an appeal from orders of a magistrate disqualifying the appellant from retaining a driver licence for a period of time. More specifically, the magistrate:
(a)convicted the appellant of drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid (CAN 5500/2024), and disqualified the appellant from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of six months; and
(b)convicted the appellant of an additional charge of drive with prescribed drug in her oral fluid (CAN 6552/2024) and disqualified her from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of six months consecutive on the disqualification imposed for CAN 5500/2024.

2․The orders sought in the Notice of Appeal are:
(a)that the disqualifications be set aside; and
(b)that the court resentence the appellant in respect of her licence disqualifications.

3․The appeal in relation to the second charge was not pressed. That was because the parties, and hence the magistrate, had erroneously proceeded on the basis that the appellant was a first offender in relation to the second in time charge because she had not been convicted of the first charge prior to being sentenced on the second charge. That involved a failure to appreciate the effect of s 4F(2)(b) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) (RTAD Act), which provided at both material times that a person…

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 Thompson v Steele

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Steele [2025] ACTSC 187
Case: [2025] ACTSC 187
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Thompson v Steele was brought forth by the appellant, Thompson, against the respondent, Steele, following a conviction in the Magistrates Court of the ACT for two charges of driving with a prescribed drug in the oral fluid. The crux of the appeal was the length of the disqualification period imposed on Thompson, which Thompson argued was improperly determined by the magistrate. Thompson contended that the magistrate had erroneously used a 'default' period as the starting point for the sentence, rather than employing a process of instinctive synthesis. This process would have required a balanced consideration of both the need to protect the community and Thompson’s subjective circumstances.

The legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the imposition of a disqualification period for traffic offences involving the presence of a prescribed drug in oral fluid. The court needed to determine whether the magistrate had properly exercised the discretion granted under the relevant legislation by balancing the various factors pertinent to the case. Specifically, the court was tasked with assessing whether the magistrate had adequately undertaken an instinctive synthesis of the relevant considerations, rather than merely applying a default period.

The court, after reviewing the magistrate's sentencing remarks, found that the magistrate had indeed undertaken an instinctive synthesis of the relevant considerations. The magistrate had appropriately balanced the need to protect the community against the appellant’s subjective circumstances, including the appellant's personal history and the specific nature of the offence. The court concluded that the magistrate had exercised the discretion correctly and that there was no error in the determination of the disqualification period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court’s final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and that each party had the liberty to apply within fourteen days for any order required by reason of the operation of the stay pending appeal under section 216 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). This decision underscores the importance of a balanced and reasoned approach to sentencing in traffic offences involving prescribed substances, ensuring that the court adequately considers both community protection and individual circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party has liberty to apply within fourteen days for any order required by reason of the operation of the stay pending appeal under s 216 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

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.