Legal Research
Cases
Vincent v Tasmania

Vincent v Tasmania

Case [2018] TASSC 24 23 May 2018

Sentencing

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Drink Driving

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2018] TASSC 24

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Vincent v Tasmania [2018] TASSC 24

PARTIES:  VINCENT, Craig Anthony
  v
  ROBINSON, Angela (Acting Sergeant)
  AVERY, Elizabeth
  WILKIE, Scott (Senior Constable)
  BARNES, Alisha (Constable)

FILE NO:  3345/2017
DELIVERED ON:  23 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18 May 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of sentencing orders – Three incidents of "drink driving" offending as unlicensed or disqualified driver – Cumulative sentences amounting to 18 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months – Totality –Manifestly excessive.
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas), ss 6, 14, 15, 17 and 19A.
Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas), s 8.
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 17.
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; Vlek v The Queen [1999] WASCA 1038, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  A Hilly
             Respondent:  S Thompson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 24
Number of paragraphs: 56

Serial No 24/2018
File No 3345/2017

CRAIG ANTHONY VINCENT v ACTING SERGEANT ANGELA ROBINSON, ELIZABETH AVERY, SENIOR CONSTABLE SCOTT WILKIE, and CONSTABLE ALISHA BARNES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

23 May 2018

On 27 October 2017, Craig Anthony Vincent appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court, and was sentenced by Magistrate S Mollard to a term of 18 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months, for three separate incidents involving "drink-driving" offences under the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, and offences under the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999. On each occasion he was either driving without a licence or as a disqualified driver. The three incidents occurred on two dates in October 2015 and on 23 June 2017, and involved the commission of the following offences:
·     7 October 2015 (complaint no. 8763/15):
odriving motor vehicle whilst alcohol was present in his breath in excess of the prescribed concentration of 0.05 of a gram of alcohol per 210 litres of breath, namely 0.141 grams of alcohol per 210 litres of breath, contrary to s 6(1) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act;
odriver not holding Australian driver licence, foreign driver licence, international driving permit with alcohol present in his body, contrary to s 6(2) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act; and
odrive whilst not the holder of a driver licence, contrary to s 8(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Act.
·     16 October 2015 (complaint no. 8762/15):
orefuse breath analysis, contrary to s 14(2) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act; and
odriving while disqualified, contrary to s 19A(1) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act;
orefuse to supply name and address, contrary to s 15(2)(a) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act.
·     23 June 2017 (complaint no. 5682/17):
odriving motor vehicle in excess of…

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 Vincent v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Vincent v Tasmania [2018] TASSC 24
Case: [2018] TASSC 24
Decision Date: 23 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vincent v Tasmania, the appellant, Vincent, appealed against his sentence for multiple incidents of driving under the influence as an unlicensed or disqualified driver. The sentencing court had imposed a total of 18 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months, which Vincent argued was manifestly excessive. The matter was brought before the Magistrates Court of Tasmania for review.

The central legal issue was whether the cumulative sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court were manifestly excessive. Vincent's counsel argued that the totality of the sentence did not take into account the unique circumstances of each offence and the potential for rehabilitation. The court was required to consider whether the sentence was disproportionately severe and if it failed to reflect the principles of justice and proportionality.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles and the nature of Vincent's offending. It recognised that while Vincent's conduct was serious, the cumulative sentence imposed was indeed excessive when viewed in the context of the totality of the offending and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence did not appropriately balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and the possibility of Vincent's rehabilitation. As such, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrates Court for resentencing.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the original sentencing order and the remission of the matter back to the Magistrates Court for reconsideration of the sentence, taking into account the court's findings regarding the excessiveness of the original sentence.

Orders