Daniel Shestowsky appeared at Downing Centre Local Court on behalf of a 27-year-old client who pleaded guilty to High Range Drink Driving with a reading of 0.292 as well as Driving Whilst Licence Suspended after committing another High Range Drink Driving Offence the previous day.
The Offending Behaviour in Sydney
Our client was a 27 year-old man who had a significant history of drug and alcohol abuse. Our client suffered from a variety of mental health conditions which played a part in his substance abuse. He was also prone to manic episodes.
Our client, when suffering from one such episode, hired a car and began driving down the coast of New South Wales. He had consumed a significant amount of alcohol. He was pulled over by Police and charged with High Range Drink Driving after registering a blood alcohol reading of 0.264, more than 5 times the legal limit. His licence was suspended on the spot.
The very next day, after again consuming a vast amount of alcohol, our client was seen driving erratically and was pulled over again and registered a blood alcohol reading of 0.292. He was charged with High Range Drink Driving and Driving Whilst Suspended.
High Range Drink Driving in New South Wales
The maximum penalty for a first offence of High Range Drink Driving in New South Wales is a $3,300 fine and/or 18 months imprisonment as well as an automatic licence disqualification of 9 months accompanied by a 24-month mandatory interlock program. The maximum penalties for a first offence of Driving Whilst Suspended are a $3,300 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment as well as an automatic period of disqualification of 6 months.
The Guideline Judgment for High Range Drink Driving in New South Wales
The Court in New South Wales is also guided by a Guideline Judgment, handed down in 2004, in relation to an offence of High Range Drink Driving. The Guideline Judgment outlines an extensive list of factors that the Court can take into account when sentencing offenders for an offence of High Range Drink Driving.
The Guideline
(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.
In this case there were a number of aggravating factors. In each case, our client’s reading was more than 5 times the legal limit. His erratic manner of driving led him to the attention of Police. He had travelled a significant distance from his home in Brisbane and had been on the road for quite some time. These factors of aggravation would suggest, on the face of the matter, that any sentence of less severity of imprisonment would generally be inappropriate.
Sentence at Downing Centre Local Court
Our client approached Australian Lawyers and Advocates to seek legal representation. Our client accepted the serious nature of his offending behaviour and the very real possibility that he could receive a jail sentence for his offences. Mr Shestowsky gathered and provided to the Court extensive material in relation to our client’s mental health treatment, the progressive steps our client had undertaken for drug and alcohol rehabilitation as well as other features relevant to the Court proceeding. After a thorough presentation of all the factors relevant to our client’s case, the Court was persuaded against a prison sentence and instead imposed a Community Corrections Order period of 2 years with a condition that he continue with his rehabilitation and mental health treatment.
This case highlights the importance of engaging lawyers who are highly knowledgeable and experienced traffic law lawyers and advocates. Our reputation and results speak for themselves and this case is another example of our ability to obtain the best outcomes for our clients.
