Borderline Mid-Range PCA: No Conviction at Mt Druitt

Result at a glance

• Charge: Mid-range PCA (s110(4)(a) Road Transport Act 2013).
• Plea: Guilty.
• Court: Mt Druitt Local Court.
• Outcome: 12-month conditional release order without conviction. No conviction, no fine, no licence disqualification.

The charge

Our client was charged with mid-range PCA under s110(4)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013. Mid-range PCA applies where a person drives with the middle range prescribed concentration of alcohol present in their breath or blood. For a first offence, the maximum penalty is 20 penalty units and/or 9 months imprisonment. For a second or subsequent offence, the maximum is 30 penalty units and/or 12 months imprisonment.

The matter was heard at Mt Druitt Local Court. After sentence submissions, the Magistrate accepted that the case was borderline and imposed a 12-month conditional release order without conviction. That meant no conviction, no fine and no licence disqualification.

Why a no-conviction result is hard here

A no-conviction result for mid-range PCA is difficult. Mid-range PCA is treated more seriously than low-range PCA. The reading is higher, the licence consequences are more serious, and the sentencing focus usually includes road safety and general deterrence. In many mid-range PCA matters, the ordinary outcome is a conviction, a fine and a disqualification. That is why this result mattered. The Court accepted that the matter could be dealt with by a conditional release order, a court-supervised good behaviour order, without recording a conviction.

The High Range PCA guideline judgment

The leading authority in NSW drink-driving sentencing is the High Range PCA Guideline Judgment, Application by the Attorney General (No 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303. That case concerned high-range PCA, not mid-range PCA. Its principles are still relevant to how courts approach alcohol-related driving: it emphasises the seriousness of drink-driving, the need for general deterrence, and the importance of sentences reflecting the risk created for other road users. The Judicial Commission notes that the guideline judgment followed concern about no-conviction outcomes being used where the objective seriousness of the offence called for a stronger response. That context makes a no-conviction result in a mid-range matter harder to obtain.

The sentencing issue

The main issue was whether a conviction was required. A conviction would have exposed our client to a fine and a licence disqualification, and potentially broader consequences depending on employment, travel and future record checks. A conditional release order without conviction is different. Under s9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the Court can impose that order through the no-conviction pathway in s10(1)(b). It is still a court order: if our client commits a further offence during the 12-month period, the matter can return to court and a conviction may be recorded. If the order is complied with, it expires without a conviction.

What was put to the Court

The submissions focused on why a conviction was not necessary in this case. The Magistrate had to balance the seriousness of mid-range PCA against the plea of guilty, the circumstances of the offence, the client's personal material, and the reasons a no-conviction order remained within range. The Court accepted the matter was borderline. That finding is important. It means the Court recognised the difficulty of the application but was satisfied the matter could be dealt with without conviction.

The result

The Court imposed a 12-month conditional release order without conviction. No conviction. No fine. No licence disqualification. That was likely the best result available, placing our client on a good behaviour order for 12 months while avoiding the consequences that usually follow a mid-range PCA conviction.

What this case shows

Mid-range PCA matters need careful sentence preparation. A guilty plea does not settle the final penalty. The Court still decides whether to record a conviction, impose a fine, disqualify the driver, or make a no-conviction order. The guideline judgment explains why alcohol-related driving offences are treated seriously in NSW, and it is part of the reason no-conviction outcomes in mid-range matters are difficult. The outcome turns on the reading, the driving circumstances, the traffic record, the personal material, the plea, and the submissions made. Here, the Court accepted the matter was borderline and dealt with it without conviction.

Charged with mid-range PCA?

A guilty plea is not the end of the matter. How the sentence is argued can decide whether a conviction is recorded and whether you keep your licence. If you've been charged with mid-range PCA anywhere in Sydney, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and NSW, including Mt Druitt.

This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.