//
[1997] QCA 200
General information, not legal advice.
Court of Appeal (Qld)
1997-06-17
Dowsett J, Demack J, Helman J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant had some previous history for drink-driving going back to 1985 and had been disqualified from driving for a period of six months as recently as February 1997 in Sydney. This was also for drink-driving. In those circumstances he was to be treated as a person with a significantly bad driving record involving drink-driving. As I have said, there was at least a suggestion that he had been drinking on this occasion. In those circumstances a significant penalty was called for, and there can be no doubt that a period of imprisonment was justified. I find myself unable to disagree with the learned Magistrate in fixing a period of 12 months as the appropriate head sentence.
It is conceded by the prosecution, however, and I believe correctly, that this sentence did not of itself reflect the credit due to the applicant for his early plea of guilty.
The Magistrate ordered that the sentence be suspended after a period of six months for an operational period of three years. This does nothing more than give the credit that would normally be available by way of parole.
In the circumstances something more than that was called for in order to recognise the early plea. I consider that appropriate recognition would have been given by providing for suspension after a period of four months with the same operational period of three years.
As has already been indicated, the applicant chose not to appear to argue his application, but brief written reasons in support have been provided to us. In effect, the applicant submits that he acknowledges that he deserved a prison sentence but that he has now learned his lesson and feels that it is time for his release. He is concerned that he may be able to save his business if he is released prior to August of this year. He also thinks that he is likely to be able to rehabilitate himself from his previous reliance upon drugs and alcohol.
I have of course taken these matters into account in reaching the decision to which I have referred. It is my view, therefore, that the applicant should be granted leave to appeal, that the appeal should be allowed and that the sentence imposed below in respect of each count should be varied by changing the period after which the sentence is to be suspended from six months to four months.
DEMACK J: The orders will be as proposed by Mr Justice Dowsett.
Kroon
Hutchins [1997] QCA 200