Work history not enough to avoid conviction

A magistrate has been unmoved by a drink-driver’s employment history after her day in court.

SOCIAL MEDIA IMAGE DISCUSS USE WITH YOUR EDITOR - CONVICTION WILL STAY: De-Anne Allison Laskey has faced Gayndah Magistrates Court for a drink driving charge. Picture: Facebook.

A 47-YEAR-OLD woman's "exceptional work history" did not deter a magistrate from convicting her on a drink-driving charge.

De-Anne Allison Laskey faced Gayndah Magistrates Court on Friday, November 22, charged with driving under the influence of liquor.

WANT TO SEE MORE LIKE THIS?

Sign up for our email newsletter.

Police prosecutor Louese McConnell told the court that police intercepted Laskey on September 25, and asked her to provide a specimen for breath analysis.

"She did confess to consuming three mid-strength beers and a few wines earlier that day," Mrs McConnell said.

"The first specimen provided showed a reading of 0.154."

Defence lawyer Morgan Harris told the court his defendant has "an exceptional work history", currently working full time at Mundubbera post office.

"After a short period of unemployment she worked at Noosa Hospital, as well as in a medical receptionist position," Mr Harris said.

"She has previously volunteered in a kindergarten, as well as being a voluntary swimming instructor."

Mr Harris asked Magistrate Ross Woodford to exercise discretion in not recording a conviction, as the defendant undergoes passport checks at her place of work.

In his concluding statements, Mr Harris told the court that Laskey does not suffer problems with alcohol, but only drinks socially.

Magistrate Woodford acknowledged the defendant had no history of a like nature in the past five years, however indicated she did have a history of drink-driving.

Laskey pleaded guilty to the charge, was fined $1000, disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 10 months, and was convicted.

"I'm going to leave a conviction recorded firstly because of the serious nature of the offence before the court," Mr Woodford said.

"Secondly because of the fact on your history you have at least two previous convictions there for a like nature, drink-driving."

Mr Woodford said the reason behind not recording a conviction was to give a person a second chance, not for them to "come back and forth".

"Unfortunately you've come back, and that conviction will stay," he said.

Originally published as