The Court of
Criminal Appeal on the 8th of September 2004 had delivered the
guideline judgment with respect to offences of High Range PCA because of an
application by the Attorney General pursuant to section 37 of the Crimes
(Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment with respect to High
Range PCA offences.
The ‘Guideline
Judgment’ was issued because of the growing concern surrounding drink
driving in NSW, particularly for High Range Offences.
The purpose of
the guideline judgment is to ‘guide’ courts and assist the Courts when dealing
with offenders who appear before the Court for High range PCA (Prescribed
Concentration of Alcohol). It should be noted that the guideline judgment is
not binding on every single case, and we will discuss the meaning of the words
‘Guideline Judgment’ in further detail below.
What is a ‘Guideline
Judgment’?
It was noted in
the case of Regina v Jurisic [1998] 45 NSWLR 209
that:
“Such guidelines are
intended to be indicative only. They are not intended to be applied to
every case as if they were rules binding on sentencing judges. Decisions of
appellant courts on sentencing are not to be treated as binding precedents.
“In accordance with this
approach, guideline judgments perform a limited role. Nevertheless, in my
opinion, such judgments will provide a useful statement of principle to assist
trial judges to ensure consistency of sentencing with respect of particular kinds of offences. I reiterate that such
guidelines are not binding in a formal sense. They represent a relevant
indicator, much as trial judges have always regarded statutory maximum
penalties as an indicator.”
NSW COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL DELIBERATIONS:
We will breakdown the bulk of the deliberations made by the
NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in the following headings (Below). For more information on the ‘guideline judgment’ for
high range PCA, please be sure to visit the following government website: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549faf243004262463b758d1
DRIVER EDUCATION
PROGRAMS:
“There is evidence that suggests that attendance at such
a program lessens the likelihood of reconviction for drink driving. This may be
not only because of the educative value in causing the offender to appreciate
the consequences of such conduct but also because of the humiliation
experienced by an offender in being required to attend such a program.” [At Paragraph 74]
“Notwithstanding the undoubted beneficial affect upon a driver of participation in a driver education
program, that fact can have little impact, in my view upon the appropriate
sentence to be imposed for an offence of High Range PCA in the usual case,
except in so far as the length of disqualification may be concerned or the
amount of the fine. The offence in general is so serious and the criminality
involved in even a typical case so high that, in my view the participation of
the offender in a program cannot be seen as an alternative to punishment for an
offence of this nature. In particular there is no
warrant at all for the making of an order under Section 10 simply because the
offender has participated in such a program or is to do so as part of the
conditions of a bond.” [At Paragraph 121]
‘REASONS WHY THE OFFENDER DRANK.’
‘’Generally speaking the reason for the consumption of alcohol will be
irrelevant. The offence is not concerned with punishing the drinking of alcohol
but with the driving thereafter. Therefore, it is of no significance that the
alcohol was consumed at a wake or a celebration, or because the person was
abusing alcohol either generally or on the particular
occasion because of some emotional or psychiatric condition. Yet in a number of the 199 random cases, the reason for the
consumption of alcohol seems to have been a factor in the magistrate making an
order under s 10. For example, in one case the magistrate apparently took into account that the offender had consumed alcohol
after being with her brother who was dying of cancer. As much as this fact
might give rise to feelings of sympathy for the offender, it had nothing to do
with the culpability involved in driving at high range PCA. It may have simply
indicated that the offence was unlikely to occur in the future so that specific
deterrence was not a consideration.’’ [At
Paragraph 142]
PARTICIPATION
IN A DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM.
‘’Notwithstanding the
undoubted beneficial effect upon a driver of participation in a driver
education program, that fact can have little impact, in my view, upon the
appropriate sentence to be imposed for an offence of high range PCA in the
usual case, except in so far as the length of disqualification may be concerned
or the amount of a fine. The offence in general is so serious and the
criminality involved in even a typical case so high that, in my view, the
participation of the offender in a program cannot be seen as an alternative to
punishment for an offence of this nature. In particular,
there is no warrant at all for making an order under s 10 simply because
the offender has participated in such a program or is to do so as part of the
conditions of a bond.’’ [At Paragraph
121]
‘’Punishment for the offence of high range PCA is concerned
principally with denunciation of the conduct and general deterrence. For the
typical offender recidivism is not a concern of the court. Parliament has
already provided a higher penalty where the offender might be considered as a
risk of re-offending by reason of the commission of a previous offence. I
accept that an attendance at a program may add to the general understanding in
the community of the seriousness of the offence and its potential consequences
and it may, by word of mouth, help to spread the message through the community.
But in an offence of high range PCA the possible benefits arising from attendance
at a program are outweighed, in my view, by the need for appropriate
punishment. I cannot accept that any degree of humiliation felt by the offender
at being required to attend such a course can expiate the criminality involved
in the offence such that by attendance at a program the offender can escape a
conviction that is otherwise called for to reflect the objective seriousness of
the offence.’’ [At Paragraph 122]
‘’I accept that in many cases
the offender will have been without a licence since the commission of the
offence because the police will have suspended the licence under s 34 of the RT (General) Act and it cannot be restored until the
court deals with the offender. It might be the case that the period is extended
while the offender participates in an education course hoping to achieve a
better result on sentence. However, s 34(6) requires the court to take into account the period during which the licence was
suspended when disqualifying the offender under s 25. That period can be
regarded as satisfying the whole or part of the minimum period of
disqualification: s 34(6)(b).’’ [At
Paragraph 124]
OFFENDER’S NEED FOR A LICENCE.
“Licence disqualification is such a significant matter
and can have such a devastating affect on a person’s
ability to derive income and to function appropriately within the community
that it is a matter which, in my view, must be taken into
account by a court when determining what the consequences should be,
both penal and otherwise for a particular offence committed by a particular
offender. This is not to say that the sentencing discretion should be
controlled by one particular factor alone, such as the
offender’s need for a licence or the consequences of the offender of being
disqualified for a significant period.” [At Paragraph 116]
THE
‘’GUIDELINE’’
An ordinary case
of High Range PCA was constructed by the Court and his honour in his wisdom made the following observations:
(1)
An ordinary case of the offence of high range PCA is one where:
(i) the offender drove to avoid personal inconvenience or
because the offender did not believe that he or she was sufficiently affected
by alcohol;
(ii)
the offender was detected by a random breath test;
(iii) the offender has prior good character;
(iv) the offender has nil, or a minor,
traffic record;
(v) the offender’s licence was suspended on
detection;
(vi) the offender pleaded guilty;
(vii) there is little or no risk of re-offending;
(viii)
the offender would be significantly inconvenienced by loss of licence.
(2)
In an ordinary case of an offence of high range PCA:
(i) an order under s 10 of the Sentencing Act will rarely
be appropriate;
(iii) a conviction cannot be avoided only
because the offender has attended, or will attend, a driver’s education or
awareness course;
(iii) the automatic disqualification period
will be appropriate unless there is a good reason to reduce the period of
disqualification:
(iv)
a good reason under (iii) may include:
(a) the nature of the offender’s employment;
(b) the absence of any viable alternative
transport;
(c) sickness or infirmity of the offender or
another person.
(3)
In an ordinary case of a second or subsequent high range PCA offence:
(i) an order under s 9 of the Sentencing Act will rarely
be appropriate;
(ii) an order under s 10 of the Sentencing
Act would very rarely be appropriate;
(iii)
where the prior offence was a high range PCA, any sentence of less severity
than a community service order would generally be inappropriate.
(4) The moral culpability of a high range
PCA offender is increased by:
(i) the degree of intoxication above 0.15;
(ii) erratic or aggressive driving;
(iii)
a collision between the vehicle and any other object;
(iv) competitive driving or showing off;
(v) the length of the journey at which
others are exposed to risk;
(vi) the number of persons actually put at risk by the driving.
(5)
In a case where the moral culpability of a high range PCA offender is
increased:
(i) an order under s 9 or s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act would
very rarely be appropriate;
(ii) where a number of
factors of aggravation are present to a significant degree, a sentence of any
less severity than imprisonment of some kind, including a suspended sentence,
would generally be inappropriate.
(6) In a case where the moral culpability of
the offender of a second or subsequent high range PCA offence is increased:
(i) a sentence of any less severity than imprisonment of
some kind would generally be inappropriate;
(ii)
where any number of aggravating factors are present to a significant degree or
where the prior offence is a high range PCA offence, a sentence of less
severity than full-time imprisonment would generally be inappropriate.
FULL
CASE CITATION:
Application by the Attorney General under
Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment
Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Under
Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999
(No. 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303.
FOR MORE
INFORMATION ON THE ‘GUIDELINE JUDGMENT’ FOR HIGH RANGE PCA, PLEASE BE
SURE TO VISIT THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549faf243004262463b758d1
It is very important that you
speak with a lawyer so that you can get the appropriate legal advice which you
require prior to going to court.
Our team of experienced solicitors are there for you and can
help you answer all your questions, so be sure to contact Nicopoulos Sabbagh Lawyers.
*This
article correctly reflects the Laws of NSW as at 18TH
November 2022.
*Please note that this page or any other pages on our
website (including any other social media platforms for Nicopoulos Sabbagh
Lawyers) are not to be considered as a substitute for legal advice or even
other professional advice. It should also be noted that accessing of this
information from this website does not
create a client-lawyer relationship.