ZAFRY v Police
Case
•
[2009] SASC 191
•2 July 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
ZAFRY v Police [2009] SASC 191
[2009] SASC 191
2 July 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal by the appellant, ZAFR Y, against the sentence imposed by the Magistrate for driving while disqualified, was heard in the court. The appellant was charged on two separate occasions with driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in the blood and driving an unregistered vehicle. The offences occurred approximately six weeks apart, and the appellant pleaded guilty to all charges. The Magistrate imposed an immediate custodial sentence of 28 days, and the appellant argued that the sentence should have been suspended. The appellant contended that there was good reason to suspend the sentence and that the Magistrate failed to exercise her discretion appropriately.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence should have been suspended and if there was good reason to do so. The court was required to consider the appropriate test to apply in determining whether it was appropriate to suspend the sentence and whether there was good reason to suspend the sentence of 28 days imprisonment. The court needed to assess the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on his dependants.
The court found that the appellant's offending was contumacious, but there were substantial changes in his personal circumstances since the commission of the offences. The court considered the question of the appellant's rehabilitation and the substantial impact upon his dependants. The court concluded that there was good reason to suspend the sentence of 28 days imprisonment upon the condition that the appellant enter into a bond in his own recognisance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was suspended on the specified conditions.
The court made an order that the sentence of 28 days imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate for the drive disqualified charge be suspended, and the appellant be required to enter into a bond in his own recognisance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence should have been suspended and if there was good reason to do so. The court was required to consider the appropriate test to apply in determining whether it was appropriate to suspend the sentence and whether there was good reason to suspend the sentence of 28 days imprisonment. The court needed to assess the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on his dependants.
The court found that the appellant's offending was contumacious, but there were substantial changes in his personal circumstances since the commission of the offences. The court considered the question of the appellant's rehabilitation and the substantial impact upon his dependants. The court concluded that there was good reason to suspend the sentence of 28 days imprisonment upon the condition that the appellant enter into a bond in his own recognisance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was suspended on the specified conditions.
The court made an order that the sentence of 28 days imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate for the drive disqualified charge be suspended, and the appellant be required to enter into a bond in his own recognisance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Suspended Sentence of Imprisonment
-
Rehabilitation
-
Impact on Dependants
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
ZAFRY v Police [2009] SASC 191
Most Recent Citation
McDermott v Police [2014] SASC 175
Cases Citing This Decision
4
R v PHAM
[2014] SASCFC 95
McDermott v Police
[2014] SASC 175
R v PHAM
[2014] SASCFC 95
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
1
C, GM v Police
[2007] SASC 310
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Bendigo Theatre Case) (No 2)
[2018] FCA 1211
Barnes v Police
[2006] SASC 295