Romanin v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 641 (11 November 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2004/641.html
1300 00 2088
Romanin v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 641 (11 November 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2004/641.html
1300 00 2088
ON 11 NOVEMBER 2004, the High Court of Australia delivered Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; 219 CLR 165; 79 ALJR 129; 211 ALR 342 (11 November 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/52.html
At [40], the court said:
“This Court, in Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas, has recently reaffirmed the principle of objectivity by which the rights and liabilities of the parties to a contract are determined. It is not the subjective beliefs or understandings of the parties about their rights and liabilities that govern their contractual relations. What matters is what each party by words and conduct would have led a reasonable person in the position of the other party to believe. References to the common intention of the parties to a contract are to be understood as referring to what a reasonable person would understand by the language in which the parties have expressed their agreement. The meaning of the terms of a contractual document is to be determined by what a reasonable person would have understood them to mean. That, normally, requires consideration not only of the text, but also of the surrounding circumstances known to the parties, and the purpose and object of the transaction.”
1300 00 2088
Conomos v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 586 (20 October 2004).
World Best Holdings Limited v Sarker and anor [2004] NSWSC 935 (12 October 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2004/935.html
1300 00 2088
Trenbath v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 596 (11 October 2004).
Beligiorno v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 577 (7 October 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2004/577.html
Archiworks Architects Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 616 (23 September 2004).
1300 00 2088
Hinde v Mosman Municipal Council [2004] NSWLEC 560 (20 September 2004).
ON 8 SEPTEMBER 2004, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal delivered 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.
The NSW Attorney General made an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal seeking a guideline judgment for sentencing of offenders convicted of high range drink driving. The Attorney General held a concern that too many offenders were receiving leniency by way of s10 orders dismissing or conditionally discharging the offence without a conviction being recorded.
The guideline identifies:
The actual guideline is as follows:
(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 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act will rarely be appropriate;
(ii) 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 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act will rarely be appropriate;
(ii) an order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) 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 Pro¬cedure) 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 impris¬onment 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
1300 00 2088