AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Local Court 16 February 2009

Police V Rivers

[2009] NSWLC 3

Assault & violenceTraffic & drivingPublic order & justice offences
NEGLIGENT DRIVING FAIL TO STOP AND SUPPLY PARTICULARS MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

Citation: Police v Rivers [2009] NSWLC 3
Court: Local Court of New South Wales (Downing Centre)
Date: 16 February 2009
Judge(s): Chief Magistrate G L Henson

Background

The offender, a young woman, faced two separate series of criminal charges arising from incidents on 1 February 2008 and 19 May 2008. She pleaded guilty to all charges, though not without procedural delay in each set of proceedings.

The February 2008 offences arose from a night of drinking in Sydney's inner city. After her companion appropriately refused to give her the car keys, the offender obtained them by deception, telling her companion she only wanted to retrieve personal belongings. She then drove off in the vehicle without consent, collided with two other cars on the M7 motorway while travelling at approximately 100 km/h, and failed to stop at either collision. She was arrested the following morning and was found to be in a state consistent with ongoing intoxication.

The May 2008 offences occurred at St Mary's Police Station and involved five counts of malicious damage and two counts of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty. Chief Magistrate Henson declined to restate the facts in detail but described the behaviour as conduct that ordinary community members would view "with revulsion and disgust." He also made specific commendatory remarks about the restraint and professionalism shown by the police officers involved.

  • What sentences were appropriate across eleven charges, given the objective seriousness of the conduct?
  • What discount, if any, should apply for the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas, given the delayed and procedurally complicated manner in which they were entered?
  • Whether the offender's personal circumstances, including evidence of substance abuse and steps toward rehabilitation, warranted a non-custodial or suspended outcome.
  • Whether the automatic three-year licence disqualification for a second major traffic offender should be applied or reduced in relation to the driving under the influence charge.

Decision

Chief Magistrate Henson found that the objective seriousness of both sets of offences was high, placing several charges towards the most serious category of their kind. The manner in which the pleas were entered significantly reduced their utilitarian value. In the February 2008 matter, the offender had failed to appear, resulting in arrest warrants, then entered a not guilty plea before eventually changing to guilty. In the May 2008 matter, the initial not guilty plea was entered without legal representation, but the subsequent change to guilty still came late in proceedings. Applying the guideline judgment in R v Thomson and Houlton, the court applied a discount at the lower end of the 10 to 25 per cent range.

The court considered the offender's personal circumstances, including a history of substance abuse, steps taken toward rehabilitation, and letters of apology to the police officers. Chief Magistrate Henson accepted the apologies as genuine but was careful to note they could not undo the impact of the offending. He ultimately imposed sentences of imprisonment, suspended under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, conditioned on good behaviour bonds. The court drew on R v Hemsley and other authorities to confirm that a suspended sentence is not a lenient outcome: it carries a real and automatic consequence of imprisonment upon any proved breach.

On licence disqualification, the offender was treated as a second major traffic offender by virtue of a 2007 conviction, triggering an automatic three-year disqualification. Chief Magistrate Henson found nothing in the circumstances warranting a departure from that automatic period, noting that the offender's history of substance misuse made a lengthy disqualification appropriate both in the community interest and her own.

Orders Made

• Each sentence of imprisonment is suspended pursuant to Section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, conditional upon the offender entering a bond to be of good behaviour for the term specified in each period of imprisonment imposed
• The offender is disqualified from holding or obtaining any license for a period of 3 years from 16th February 2009

The judgment records the following outcomes:

  • Sentences of imprisonment imposed across the more serious charges, each suspended under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, conditional on good behaviour bonds for the duration of each term.
  • Section 9 good behaviour bonds imposed in relation to other offences, on identical conditions.
  • A three-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence, effective from 16 February 2009.

Key Takeaways

  • The utilitarian value of a guilty plea is diminished where the offender initially fails to appear, is arrested on warrant, enters a not guilty plea, and only later changes that plea. The court applied a discount at the lower end of the range established in R v Thomson and Houlton.
  • A suspended sentence under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 carries genuine punitive weight. Any proved breach automatically triggers the underlying term of imprisonment, as confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in DPP v Cooke [2007] NSWCCA 2.
  • Where an offender is classified as a second major traffic offender, the automatic three-year disqualification period applies unless specific discretionary grounds exist to depart from it. No such grounds were found here.
  • Letters of apology and evidence of steps toward rehabilitation can be accepted as genuine mitigating material, but their weight is limited where the conduct was of high objective seriousness.
  • Commendatory remarks about police conduct, while unusual, were recorded by the Chief Magistrate and directed to be conveyed to the officers involved, reflecting the court's recognition of the restraint shown in difficult circumstances.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 154A(1)(a), 60(1), 195(a)
- Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (NSW): ss 12(1)(A), 42(1)(C); Australian Road Rule 287(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): ss 9, 12

Cases:
- R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 (guideline judgment on guilty plea discounts)
- DPP v Cooke [2007] NSWCCA 2 (consequences of breaching suspended sentences)
- R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 109 (nature of suspended sentences)
- R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
- R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
- R v Walker [2005] NSWCCA 109
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR
- Elliot v Harris (No 2) (1976) 13 SASR