WHITE v Police - [2017] SASC 111

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
WHITE v POLICE
[2017] SASC 111
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
25 July 2017
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - PLEA BARGAIN
TRAFFIC LAW - LICENSING OF DRIVERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - DISQUALIFICATION, CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENCES - USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR DRUGS - DRIVING WITH MORE THAN PRESCRIBED CONCENTRATION OF ALCOHOL IN BLOOD
The appellant was charged with driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, failing to stop and provide particulars at the scene of an accident and driving while having the prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. On the morning of the trial, 20 January 2017, the appellant pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 3, guilty to a charge of driving without due care which had been laid on a separate complaint and count 1 (driving in a manner dangerous) was dismissed. Upon conviction of the drink driving offence the appellant was fined $1,100 and disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for 11 months and 12 days commencing 12 January 2017.
The appellant has appealed against his conviction for the drink driving offence on the basis that the circumstances in which he entered his guilty plea gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. He has also appealed against the sentence imposed on the ground that the circumstances of the offending rendered the drink driving offence trifling.
Held:
1. The appeal against conviction for the offence of driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol, contrary to section 47B(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act be allowed.
2. The matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court for trial before a different Magistrate with respect to this charge.
Road Traffic Act 1961 s 45, s 47B, s 47GA, s 47K; Australian Road Rules r 287; Magistrates Court Act 1991 s 42, referred to.
Groom v Police (No 2) [2013] SASC 50, (2013) 115 SASR 446; Green v Police [1999] SASC 412, (1999) 108 A Crim R 246; Choong v Police [2010] SASC 312; Tsavalas v Police [2016] SASC 103; Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67, (2001) 209 CLR 1; Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41, (1995) 184 CLR 132, considered.

WHITE v POLICE
[2017] SASC 111
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
NICHOLSON J.
Introduction

On 20 January 2017, the appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of driving without due care contrary to section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (RTA), one count of failing to stop and provide particulars at the scene of an accident contrary to rule 287 of the Australian Road Rules and one count of driving while having the prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood contrary to section 47B(1)(a) of the RTA.
Initially, the appellant had been charged with driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to section 46 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 WHITE v Police

Details

AGLC: WHITE v Police [2017] SASC 111
Case: [2017] SASC 111
Decision Date: 25 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, White, appealed against his conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of South Australia for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, which considered the legality of the sentence and the applicability of certain factors during sentencing. The primary legal issue was whether the magistrate erred in imposing the sentence, specifically whether the discount for a guilty plea was appropriately applied given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's prior criminal history. The court also considered whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The Supreme Court found that the magistrate did not err in imposing the sentence. The court held that the discount for the guilty plea was appropriately applied, taking into account the appellant's prior criminal history and the nature of the offence. The court noted that the appellant had a previous conviction for a similar offence, which indicated a pattern of behaviour that warranted a custodial sentence. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence was not excessive or manifestly inadequate, as it was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences. The court also emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to uphold the law in cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. The court found that the magistrate correctly applied the relevant factors during sentencing, and that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The appellant's argument that the sentence was excessive was rejected, as the court found that it was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences. The court also emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to uphold the law in cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol.

Orders