SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Allen [2012] QCA 259
PARTIES:
R
v
ALLEN, Matthew Liam
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 84 of 2012
DC No 248 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:
25 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 August 2012
JUDGES:
Margaret McMurdo P and Fryberg and North JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death – where applicant was 24 years old at time of offence and had no criminal history – where applicant had three entries in his traffic history – where applicant was in one of two right turning lanes and turned across oncoming traffic colliding with a motorcycle driver – where he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date after nine months – where he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license for two and a half years – whether sentence was manifestly excessive
R v Damrow [2009] QCA 245, considered
R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 154, considered
R v Maher[2012] QCA 7, considered
R v Major; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2012] 1 Qd R 465; [2011] QCA 210, citedCOUNSEL:
S A Lynch for the applicant
A Moynihan SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Bell Miller Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Matthew Allen, was convicted after a four day jury trial of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing the death of Matthew Caltabiano on the Sunshine Coast on 28 February 2009. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date of 11 January 2013, that is, after nine months. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two and a half years. He has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence contending that it is manifestly excessive given his good prior history and that the judge failed to give adequate weight to his cooperation with authorities and mitigating factors.
He was 24 at the time of the offence and 27 at sentence. He had no prior criminal history. He had three entries in his traffic history. In 2004 he exceeded the speed limit by between 13 and 20 kph and was fined $150. In 2005 he was charged with driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of liquor with a blood alcohol reading of .105 and fined $600 and disqualified from driving for three months. In 2009, after the commission of the present offence, he was fined $133 for exceeding the speed limit by less…
Continue reading R v Allen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Allen [2012] QCA 259
- Case
- [2012] QCA 259
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant's counsel argued that the sentence was disproportionate given the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, and the circumstances of the accident. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of the offence and its consequences. The court was required to assess the sentence's proportionality in light of these factors.
The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It noted the severity of the offence and the resulting fatality. While the applicant had no criminal history and was young, the court considered the multiple traffic entries as indicative of a pattern of risky driving behaviour. The court emphasised the need for deterrence and denunciation in such cases to protect public safety. It concluded that the sentence, with its parole release date and lengthy disqualification from driving, was a balanced and appropriate response to the offence committed. The court's decision to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence affirmed the sentence as proportionate and justified.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
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.