Wright v Police No. Scgrg-99-1235 Judgment No. S506

[1999] SASC 506

MONDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 1999

WRIGHT v POLICE
[1999] SASC 506

1 PRIOR J      In this matter, Mr Wright lodged an appeal against sentence, complaining about his loss of licence. 
2 He pleaded guilty to a charge of driving in a manner and at a speed which was dangerous to the public.  The offence occurred at Prospect on 23 July 1999.  The magistrate was obliged to impose a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for at least six months, unless satisfied, by evidence given on oath, that the offence was trifling.  In such a case, the period of disqualification could be a period less than the minimum period of six months, but no less than one month. 
3 The appellant was not represented before the magistrate.  However, appropriate advice was given to him with respect to his intimated plea of guilty.  He told the magistrate of having received some advice before the hearing.  He was given an opportunity to obtain further advice from a duty solicitor during the hearing. 
4 The magistrate was plainly correct in informing the appellant that he could not avoid a licence disqualification, although it might be reduced below the minimum he actually imposed to one of not less than a month if, on sworn evidence, the offence was shown to be trifling.  The magistrate told the appellant he could not consider the matter, as outlined by the prosecution, as trifling.   In my opinion, the magistrate was clearly right in that. 
5 The undisputed facts with respect to the commission of the offence were that, in the early hours of the morning, of 23 July 1999, police observed a vehicle travelling on Prospect Road at an estimated speed of between 110 and 125 kilometres per hour.  They saw the vehicle swerve sharply from left to right over an approximate distance of some 50 metres.  That manoeuvre was repeated on two further occasions.  The police stopped the vehicle.  The appellant estimated his speed between 90 and 100 kilometres per hour.   He explained that his swerves were to enable a passenger in the rear of the van he was driving to ski.  That passenger was standing in the rear of the van, holding on a rope and being thrown from side to side.  There was a passenger in the seat alongside the driver.  The magistrate was told that traffic conditions at that time of the morning were light.  Nevertheless, the offence was made out on the facts relied upon by the prosecution. 
6 In his brief sentencing remarks, the magistrate described the appellant's behaviour as fairly stupid.  He referred to the danger to which the appellant had exposed his companion in the back of the van.  He referred to the traffic conditions, and the difficulties associated with the licence disqualification.  Because of the prospective loss of employment resulting from the period of disqualification, the magistrate said he would impose a minimum penalty of $300.  This he did, together with a minimum period of disqualification for six months. 
7 In all the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any proper basis upon which any appeal could succeed.   There is no proper basis upon which this court could interfere.  The appellant has, at long last, realised that by attending this morning and abandoning the appeal.  I make these remarks so that it is plain, I hope, that, if anything, Mr Wright was treated very leniently, in all the circumstances. 
8 I hope he will make good use of this sobering lesson and not suffer too much for that which Parliament says must happen if people drive in this way.  Sometimes youth is a disadvantage.  Sometimes courts try to make allowance for that.  In this case the magistrate made every allowance he could.  The rest is a case of the law having to take its course. 
9 The appeal is dismissed.

2