SUPREME COURT Gaol sentence upheld

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33941, 6 September 1975, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Gaol sentence upheld

The increase in the incidence of people driving with an excess bloodalcohol level required a strict deterrent approach in sentencing, said Mr Justice Casey in the Supreme Court yesterday.

He refused to quash a prison sentence imposed against Hector Stewart McCaughan, but reduced the term from one month to 14 days.

McCaughan, aged 40, a rubber worker, had appealed against the sentence. His blood-alcohol level at the time of the offence was 229 mg. The Magistrate who imposed the sentence, Mr D. I. N. McLean S.M., also put McCaughan on probation for a year, ordered him to take treatment for alcoholism, and cancelled hfs driver’s licence for three years. This was McCaughan’s second conviction for the same type of offence. Mr R. F. B. Perry, for the appellant, said that he was

conscious of the remarks made by his Honour last week, as reported in the newspaper about the prevalance of this type of offence and the necessity to impose gaol sentences as a deterrent.

However, the offender who appealed the previous week had three convictions for driving with excess blood-alcohol and was sentenced to 14 days gaol whereas McCaughan who was appearing for the second time on that offence was sentenced to one month’s gaol. Mr Perry submitted that this was a case for a penalty other than imprisonment. The deterrent aspect could be provided for by ordering McCaughan to do community work along with the other penalties. If McCaughan was gaoled there was a possibility that he would lose his job. Mr G. K. Panckhurst for the Crown said that the statistics showed there had been a significant increase in this type of offence. The deterrentaspect weighed heav-

ily because this was a second offence.

It was the practice in the Magistrate’s Court to consider a penalty greater than a fine once the level exceeded 200 mg even for a first offender, Mr Panckhurst said. His Honour said that this was a matter which gave him some concern. McCaughan had a good work record and had family responsibilties but he had been convicted of the same offence in February, 1973, and had been fined $lOO and disqualified for nine months. “It is unfortunate that otherwise hard-working and responsible citizens become involved in offences of this type, possibly because of ordinary social pressures, and then face a penalty of imprisonment,” his Honour said.

The increase in this type of offence and the high level of the alcohol content in the appellant’s blood were two factors which required that a strict deterrent approach be maintained until the number of offences declined, said his Honour.