Monday v Queensland Police Service
[2012] QDC 167
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Monday v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 167
- Add to List
Monday v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 167
Monday v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 167
QDC [2012] 167
DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE DURWARD SC
TAMARA ANITA JOY MONDAY | Respondent/Plaintiff |
and | |
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE | Applicant/Defendant |
TOWNSVILLE
DATE 12/04/2012
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: The appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Townsville on 19 August 2011 of a disqualified driving offence, and for a fail to appear bail offence. She was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment and a cumulative sentence of six weeks' imprisonment, a total of 15 and a-half months.
A parole release date was fixed at 25 December 2011. She was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for three years. Twenty-five days of pre-sentence custody from 25 July 2011 to 18 August 2011 was declared. Hence the term of actual imprisonment was five months, or approximately one-third of the total sentence. The appeal is made on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The appellant was released on parole on 25 December 2011. The only real issue now is the length of that parole period. The appellant failed to appear to answer her bail on the subject charge on the second return date, hence the fail to appear bail offence. She had six previous offences for disqualified driving committed since 2007, and had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment on the last four of those offences. The latest prior conviction for disqualified driving was for two years, made on 20 September 2010.
At the time of the hearing of this matter in the Magistrates Court she had been cumulatively disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence until October 2017. There was some contention as to whether the plea of guilty was an early plea. The Magistrate did not accept it as "necessarily an early plea", apparently because of the failure to appear and the consequent delay of about two months, although a pre-sentence report had been requested about a fortnight after the date of the offence, which implies that a plea of guilty had either been made or at least foreshadowed.
However, I do not think much turns on this because the appellant received the benefit of the usual reduction of actual custody of one-third of the head sentence. A term of imprisonment was the only sentencing option in the circumstances. The appellant's lawyer accepted that. Mr Hibble for the appellant has submitted that the term of 14 months' imprisonment where the maximum term was 18 months was excessive, and that the six-week term of imprisonment with the fail to appear offence was excessive.
Any sentence of imprisonment for the latter offence was required to be cumulative. The appellant had one previous conviction for a breach of bail. On the subject occasion she travelled to south-east Queensland and out of the Magistrates Court district in Townsville. She subsequently returned to north Queensland and was arrested on a warrant in Ayr two months after she failed to appear.
The appellant's traffic and criminal history were clearly relevant aggravating circumstances that the Magistrate was entitled to take into account. The systematic re-offending with respect to driving whilst disqualified by Court order was a critical circumstance. The four previous terms of imprisonment for this offence were, in ascending order, seven months in September 2007, one month in April 2009, six months in June 2009 and 12 months in January 2010.
The appellant had given a false account to police as to her reason for driving. More significantly, however, she informed Mr Hinchcliffe, the author of the pre-sentence report, that whilst she knew she should not have been driving because her licence was disqualified, she had been taking a friend to hospital. At page 3 of the report Mr Hinchcliffe wrote, "It is notable Ms Monday has continued to offend by way of driving motor vehicles and provided rationalisations for her current offences to her need to drive."
A sentence is excessive only if it is beyond the acceptable scope of judicial discretion, or so outside the appropriate range as to demonstrate inconsistency and unfairness. There is several well-known authorities that support those contentions, including R v. Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98, Lemass v. R (1981) 5 A Crim R 230, Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 and the R v. McIntosh [1923] St R Qd 278.
Personal deterrence was a relevant matter in this case because of the persistent recidivism of the appellant for disqualified driving offences.
The relevant principles on appeals against sentence are those established in the long-standing authorities of House v. R (1936) 55 CLR 499 at pages 504 and 505; and Hughes v. Hopgood [1950] QWN 21
The sentence of 14 months' imprisonment is within range, in my view. I do not consider that the Magistrate has made any error. Similarly, the six weeks cumulative sentence, whilst perhaps longer than might have been imposed by another judicial officer, is nevertheless within range. I do not consider that the Magistrate has made any error.
Pursuant to section 225 of the Justices Act 1886, I may confirm or vary sentences made below. The appeal is dismissed. I confirm the sentences made by the Magistrate.