A first offender under s 67 was subject to two separate components of punishment – a fine or imprisonment under s 67(1) and mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving license for a period of at least 12 months under s 67(2), unless the court was satisfied that there were special reasons to order otherwise.

In determining sentence, 2-step approach adopted by the court:

1. The extent of concentration of alcohol in the offender’s blood or breath
2. Whether there were aggravating or mitigating factors

$1,000 to $2,000 in fines, and a driving ban of 12 to 18 months for offenders between 35 and 54 ug;

$2,000 and $3,000 and 18 to 24 months for offenders with 55-69ug

$3,000 to $4,000 and 24 to 36 months for offenders with 70-89ug

More than $4,000 and 36 to 48 months or longer for those with at least 90ug

• Actual or potential danger posed by the act:
  • Manner of driving (e.g. speeding, poor control of vehicle, driving against traffic),
  • Circumstances (e.g. act committed during rush hour where volume of traffic is heavy, act committed over a substantial distance)
• Real consequences of the act
  • Actual harm/property damage
• Conduct upon apprehension
  • Cooperation – but this has no little to no bearing on disqualification order because it bears only a minimal relation to the rationale behind the imposition of a disqualification order
• Reasons for driving
  • If driving passengers for hire or reward – gravity of offence increases
• Mitigating
  • The absence of aggravating factors in itself cannot be deemed a mitigating factor
  • Driving because of emergency or other extenuating circumstances
  • Unblemished driving record

Accused tried to invoke special reasons to against disqualification order, stating that “Being disqualified ‘could turn out drastic’ for the Accused as his driving licence is important for the conduct of his business, his livelihood and source of income for the Accused and his family. With the said disqualification, his income would be severely affected. Further, it is already a severe punishment not only for the Accused but for his family as well.”

Court nonetheless ordered a disqualification of 21 months (falling within the appropriate sentencing band).

2-step test affirmed in recent case.

Court further explained that the accused’s public service and contributions will only be a mitigating factor if it can be shown that the sentencing objectives (retribution, prevention, deterrence, rehabilitation) can be satisfied despite the lighter sentence. For example – his good character is indicative of his capacity to reform and it tempers the concern over specific deterrence of the offender, or that his past record is indicative of a connection between his record and his capacity/willingness for reform.

2-step test affirmed in recent case.

Court gave examples of mitigating factors:

• Offender’s timely plea of guilt, stopping to render assistance to victim(s), good driving record, evidence of remorse.

However, the court further highlighted that an appropriate period of disqualification should be ordered.