1 May 2023
The High Court concluded there was no error in the District Court's exercise of discretion under s 94: the Judge properly balanced the appellant's financial hardship against public safety and deterrence, and appropriately backdated the disqualification to permit application for a limited licence; accordingly the refusal to substitute was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
3 Apr 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the District Court judge did not err in declining to exercise the s 94 discretion: prior disqualifications had demonstrable effect, a further period of disqualification was likely to deter and protect the public, s 94 is reserved for clear cases, and therefore it was not inappropriate to order disqualification and the s 94 jurisdiction did not arise.
23 Nov 2022
Having considered s 94 afresh the High Court concluded there were no special circumstances to make mandatory disqualification inappropriate: the offender posed a real risk (very high breath reading and speeding), prior disqualifications had been effective but were neutral, a limited licence was available to mitigate employment hardship, and 100 hours community work combined with the disqualification was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
17 Jun 2022
The High Court found no error in the District Court's exercise of discretion under s 94 LTA: the Judge had considered the appellant's circumstances, employment and need for work, properly treated speeding as an aggravating factor, and reasonably preferred the route of disqualification with the possibility of a limited licence rather than substituting a community-based sentence; the sentence of community detention was not manifestly excessive and any variation should proceed under Sentencing Act s 69I in the District Court, accordingly the appeal was dismissed and recommencement of the balance…
31 Aug 2021
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because no error in the sentence was identified; the sentencing judge had provided an interval between sentencing and the commencement of disqualification which afforded the opportunity to renew the licence, therefore the proposed appeal lacked merit and extension of time was not in the interests of justice.
7 Jul 2021
Leave for the second appeal was granted because the 80 hour community work sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive: the sentencing courts failed to apply the Sentencing Act's purposes, hierarchy and requirement to regard a fine as appropriate (ss7,8,10A,13), and for a second low-to-moderate seriousness drink-driving offence without aggravating features a fine plus appropriate disqualification is the normal outcome; accordingly the community work was quashed and replaced with a fine, while the seven month disqualification was within range and upheld.
3 May 2021
Having considered the s 94(1) factors and admitted fresh evidence, the Court concluded disqualification was inappropriate given the offender's employment and family circumstances, the neutral effect of prior disqualification, and that sentencing purposes could be met by a community-based sentence; accordingly the one-year disqualification was quashed and substituted with an additional 60 hours community work under s 94(3).
16 Mar 2010
Production of the District Court order authorising a limited licence, together with evidence that the officer sighted the distinctive pink limited licence and evidence of Agency practice, is sufficient to prove the terms of the limited licence beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the adjournment did not cause material prejudice and there is no basis for judicial review intervention.