99.8
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
THOMAS JA
MACKENZIE J
CA No 407 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.
MICHAEL GREGORY TAPAU
BRISBANE
..DATE 04/02/99
040299 T14/BC7 M/T COA 4/99
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will ask Mr Justice Thomas to deliver
the first judgment in this matter.
THOMAS JA: The applicant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death. He seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after six months and a disqualification from holding a driver's licence for two years.
He was 26 years old at the time of the offence and has no criminal history. He has, however, a traffic record which contains entries of speeding, driving under the influence and unlicensed driving.
On the occasion in question, he was driving his vehicle along Cherbourg Road along a sealed surface with one lane travelling in each direction divided by a single centre lane. He elected to overtake a number of vehicles when it was obviously unsafe to do so. One of the vehicles was forced to swerve off to the left on to the grass shoulder where it struck a guide-post. He drove his own vehicle off the road to the right because there was oncoming traffic. In the course of doing this, he struck a tree and the back-seat passenger in his vehicle was killed.
The learned sentencing Judge characterised the applicant's conduct as reckless inattention but in my view it went beyond inattention. His Honour relatively adverted to the traffic history and also to the favourable aspects including the lack of criminal history, good work history, a pregnant wife, three 040299 T14/BC7 M/T COA 4/99
children and an early plea of guilty.
In my view, the head sentence of 18 months imprisonment is within the appropriate range of offences of this kind and the recommendation for earlier consideration of parole places the actual sentence well within the limits of the proper sentencing discretion.
I do not think it necessary to canvass other previous decisions of this Court which uphold sentences of this order and, indeed, greater sentences. The applicant appeared in person and did not suggest any particular grievance in relation to the sentence.
In these circumstances, I would refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.
MACKENZIE J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.
-----
- AGLC
- R v Tapau [1999] QCA 8
- Case
- [1999] QCA 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate for the offence and whether the recommendation for parole consideration was within the proper limits of sentencing discretion. The court considered the applicant's traffic history and other mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal record, good work history, and family responsibilities. The court found that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with the recommendation for parole after six months, was within the appropriate range for such offences. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant did not express any particular grievance regarding the sentence.
The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's history. The Court of Appeal, consisting of de Jersey CJ, Thomas JA, and Mackenzie J, unanimously agreed to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application and uphold the original sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.