Trenerry v Garbe [1999] NTSC 66

tried to do the right thing. As he had been drinking he had arranged a sober

driver to drive his car to his home, and when pulled up by the police was

only 30 or 40 metres from that destination. He did not wish to leave the car

where it was pulled up as he had tools and equipment in it, so he proceeded

to drive the extra distance. Immediately after this incident, he attended to

the registration and compensation contribution requirements.

As to the fact of the failure to register and "insure", he claimed not to have

adverted to the expiry date. As to his driver's licence, it was only a few

days since it had expired and he had not received the customary reminder

letter from the Motor Vehicle Registry prior to his offending.

Since fresh sentences have to be imposed the Court has received evidence of

penalties imposed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for like offences.

That evidence shows that rarely in the significant number of examples

given, the penalty for "uninsured" exceeds $500. It is normally coupled

with a further penalty for driving an unregistered motor vehicle, and for that

the minimum imposed has been $100, sometimes increasing to, but not

exceeding $250. Unlicensed drivers have regularly been penalised as little

as $100, but on occasion ranging up to $350. The cases were limited to

those involving adult offenders. There is no material relating to penalties

for failure to transfer registration. (It is probably because of that failure

that the respondent did not receive the usual notice that the registration and

I take into account the circumstances of the commission of the offences, that

they were all part of the one series of transactions, committed over a short

space of time and that the second group of offences occurred over a very

short distance. As to the second series of offending in which the respondent

was the driver, it cannot be said that he was unaware of the fact that the

vehicle was unregistered and uninsured, and although that may be regarded

as an aggravating feature, I bear in mind that he took over the driving of the

car for the purpose of preserving his property which he might well have

This is not a case where the prosecutor had not done what was reasonable to

assist his Worship, nor is the respondent facing the true case against him for

the first time. He is not being put in "double jeopardy" (R v Tait and

Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 at 390). Nor is it a case where his Worship was

acting leniently (R v Oesenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212). His Worship made

an error of law. However, I bear in mind that even in those circumstances

the practice appears to have been that the new sentence is less than that

which ought to have been imposed at first instance.

The convictions are affirmed. The fine of $600 is quashed. In lieu thereof

the respondent is fined $500 for each of the offences relating to the driving

of a motor vehicle in respect of which a current compensation contribution

had not been paid. I consider that fines of $100 each for each of the

offences relating to the driving of an unregistered motor vehicle, $100 for

driving without a licence and $100 for failure to transfer the registration, a

total of $400, would be appropriate. However, in all the circumstances the

fine will be $25 on each count, a total of $100 for those offences and $1,100

The fine of $350 is undisturbed, as are the victim impact levies and the

order for disqualification from driving or obtaining a driver's licence.

I will hear counsel as to the question of imprisonment in default of payment

------------------------------------------------------------