Latest Cases Case Lookup LegislationBeta Notebook Research Briefs

Stoehr v Meyer [2016] ACTSC 144 — Appeal & Jurisdiction, Practice And Procedure — Barrister AI

Stoehr v Meyer

[2016] ACTSC 144

Supreme Court of the ACT2 June 2016

More

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal and New Trial
2. › APPEAL
3. › GENERAL PRINCIPLES
4. › Appeal from the Magistrates Court
5. › appeal against sentence
6. › appeal against licence disqualification period
7. › alleged error of law
8. › “default” period of disqualification erroneous starting point
9. › Tindall v Spalding [2014] ACTSC 253; (2014) 10 ACTLR 198 and NSW Guideline Judgment (Re Attorney General (NSW) (No 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303; [2004] 61 NSWLR 305) not followed
10. › Burow v Hoyer (2015) 292 FLR 325 followed
11. › appeal upheld
1. Criminal Law
2. › JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
3. › Judgment and Punishment
4. › Sentence
5. › resentence
6. › drive with prescribed concentration of alcohol in breath
7. › determination of disqualification period
8. › repeat offender
9. › reduction of disqualification period

Case Details

Citation[2016] ACTSC 144

CourtACTSC

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Decision Date2 June 2016

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by5

2024Tui v McLucasACTSC 164
2018Beath v McCurleyACTCA 48
2016Bethke v PhelanACTSC 328
2016Clarkson v EarleACTSC 331
and 1 more after sign-in

Relies on4

2014Tindall v SpaldingACTSC 253
2004Application 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 (NoNSWCCA 303
1988Veen v R (No 2)HCA 14
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in

See how it works