Vizzone v McMeekan

[2006] QDC 341

[2006] QDC 341

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE MCLAUCHLAN QC

Appeal No 116 of 2006

GUISEPPE VIZZONE	Appellant
and
CONSTABLE Q G McMEEKAN	Respondent
CAIRNS ..DATE 14/08/2006
JUDGMENT

14082006 D.1 T12/JFG M/T CNS2/2006 (McLauchlan DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against a sentence imposed on	1
the 18th of May 2006. The offence was driving without due care and attention. The sentence was a fine of $500 with three months to pay and the disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two months. The substantial

10

ground of appeal is that the sentence was manifestly
excessive.

The appellant had been apprehended for speeding and that matter had been dealt with and the factual basis of this

20

conviction and sentence occurred subsequently. Apparently he
drove off in some gravel. It would appear that his driving
certainly left a lot to be desired in that connection. Gravel
was scattered apparently onto the police car which was some

two metres away and police officers had to protect themselves

30

against the gravel which was thrown out by the driving of the
appellant.

The question is whether the sentence which comprises both a fine of $500 and the disqualification is excessive. There were

40

matters put to the Magistrate which did establish that
reasonably significant hardship would be suffered by the
appellant by reason of such a disqualification in view of the

nature of his employment.

50

It does seem to me in the circumstances that the matter could adequately have been dealt with by a fine, but that is not the real question. The question is whether it was manifestly, that is to say, clearly and obviously excessive to also impose the 14082006 D.1 T12/JFG M/T CNS2/2006 (McLauchlan DCJ) 2 JUDGMENT 60

disqualification which the Magistrates imposed. Had I been	1
attending to the matter myself, I would either not have imposed the disqualification or if I had, it would have been for a matter of one month or a short period like that.

10

However, I do not think it is possible to say that the which was reposed in him and the appeal is dismissed.

-----

20

30

40

50

3 JUDGMENT 60