Quinn v Petterson - [2015] QDC 44

[2015] QDC 44

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE DEVEREAUX SC
Appeal No 3182 of 2014
GERARD QUINN Appellant
and
S.E. PETTERSON Respondent
BRISBANE
10.20 AM, FRIDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2015
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This proceeding commenced and was heard as an appeal against conviction and sentence. The Appellant was charged with driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (TORUM section 79(1)) and failing to stop (TORUM section 92(1)(a)). The driving occurred on 27 June 2014. The charges came before the Magistrates Court at Holland Park on 18 July 2014.

The Appellant was represented by a solicitor. In the Appellant’s presence, the solicitor said:

I’m instructed, your Honour, to enter – that Mr Quinn wishes to enter pleas of guilty to the two charges.

The learned magistrate then said:

All right. Driving under the influence and failing to stop. Yes. Thank you.

The solicitor replied:

Thank you.

The sentencing hearing then proceeded. The magistrate imposed a single fine of $500 and disqualified the appellant from holding a licence for 15 months. The appellant has now abandoned the appeal against conviction and no longer seeks to argue that the proceeding before the learned magistrate miscarried on the ground that a certain blood alcohol reading ought not to have been adopted. It is simply said the sentence was excessive[1]. That ground of appeal has been expressed in the written outline as follows:

[1] Justices Act 1886 section 222(2)(c)

That the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances when regard is had to the Appellant’s cooperation, early plea, antecedents, medical history and traffic history.

The appeal is brought under section 222 of the Justices Act. At the hearing, I gave leave to the appellant to produce further evidence (Justices Act, section 223). The affidavits are of less relevance to the sentence appeal, but I will refer to that material later.

The police prosecutor told the learned magistrate that 8 pm on 27 June 2014, police went to the appellant’s house investigating a traffic incident from earlier in the evening. They noticed damage to his car. He spoke with a slur in his speech, was unsteady on his feet and of dishevelled appearance. A breath test produced a positive reading. Later at a police station he produced a reading of 0.209. The appellant told police he had drunk an unknown number of full-strength beers.

The next day, the appellant was interviewed by police. The prosecutor told the learned magistrate the appellant said he remembered taking anti-anxiety medication at an address at Ellen Grove before drinking beer during the afternoon before the traffic incident. He also slept before the relevant driving. He left that address to drive home to Carindale. He recalled “hearing a loud bang and impacting something but was unable to recall any further details”.

The prosecutor did not plainly tell the learned magistrate that the traffic incident occurred at about 6.20 pm. That fact is contained in the QP9 form, which is before the Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quinn v Petterson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QDC 44
Decision Date: 6 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gerard Quinn appeals against the sentence imposed on him by the Magistrates Court at Holland Park, claiming it was excessive. Quinn was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or a drug, and failing to stop, in relation to an incident on 27 June 2014. The charges were heard on 18 July 2014, where Quinn entered a plea of guilty to both charges through his solicitor. The court imposed a fine of $500 and disqualified Quinn from holding a licence for 15 months. Quinn now appeals only the sentence, claiming it was excessive given his cooperation, early plea, antecedents, medical history, and traffic history.

The court considered Quinn's medical history, including depression, and his intent to enter rehabilitation. The court also considered the fact that Quinn did not stop at the scene of the accident, and the high blood alcohol content reading of 0.18. The court found that the sentence, while long, was not excessive given the need for general and specific deterrence, and the danger to the public.

The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court also noted that the practice of solicitors entering pleas on behalf of their clients can create problems, and it should be avoided in future cases.

Orders