R v Allison - [2012] QCA 249

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Allison [2012] QCA 249

PARTIES:

R
v
ALLISON, Louis John Steven
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 42 of 2012
DC No 2126 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of the dangerous operation of a vehicle – where the sentencing judge ordered the applicant to serve 12 months imprisonment but fixed an immediate parole release date – where the sentencing judge disqualified the applicant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years and ordered the applicant to pay $6,400 as compensation to the owner of another vehicle that he damaged – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 38

R v Broadbridge[1994] QCA 278, referred
R v Elliott[2000] QCA 267, cited
R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; [1997] QCA 73, cited
R v Matauaina[2011] QCA 344, cited
R v Obern[2002] QCA 444, referred
R v Pearce[2010] QCA 338, referred
R v Theuerkauf & Theuerkauf; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 94, referred
R v Tufuga & Kepu; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 171, referred

COUNSEL:

S A Lynch for the applicant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Masons Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Douglas J and the order proposed by his Honour.

WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Douglas J and agree with his Honour’s reasons and the order which he proposes.

DOUGLAS J: The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of the dangerous operation of a vehicle. The learned sentencing judge ordered that he be imprisoned for 12 months but fixed an immediate parole release date. He also disqualified the applicant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years and ordered him to pay $6,400 as compensation to the owner of another vehicle that he damaged and, in default, two months imprisonment.

The applicant argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive, submitting that a more appropriate sentence would have been two years probation without the recording of a conviction, the payment of $550 compensation to the owner of the other vehicle and a driver’s licence disqualification of one year.

When one considers the gravity of the circumstances of the offending as well as the mitigating features, however, I have no doubt that the sentence imposed was appropriate.

Background

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.

Continue reading R v Allison

Details

AGLC: R v Allison [2012] QCA 249
Case: [2012] QCA 249
Decision Date: 18 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Allison, appealed against the sentence imposed following his conviction for dangerous operation of a vehicle. The case was heard in the court of appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the 12-month imprisonment term, which included an immediate parole release date, was inappropriate in the circumstances.

The court considered the nature of the offence, which involved significant risk to public safety due to the dangerous operation of a vehicle. It also took into account the impact on the victim, the need for deterrence, and the principles of proportionality in sentencing. The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The term of imprisonment, coupled with the immediate parole release, provided a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. Additionally, the disqualification from holding a driver’s licence and the compensation order addressed the specific circumstances of the case effectively.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not manifest any clear or obvious excess. Therefore, the application for appeal was refused. The original sentence, including the imprisonment term, parole release date, disqualification period, and compensation order, was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.

CITATION:	R v Allison [2012] QCA 249
PARTIES:	R v ALLISON, Louis John Steven (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 42 of 2012 DC No 2126 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 August 2012
JUDGES:	Fraser and White JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of the dangerous operation of a vehicle – where the sentencing judge ordered the applicant to serve 12 months imprisonment but fixed an immediate parole release date – where the sentencing judge disqualified the applicant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years and ordered the applicant to pay $6,400 as compensation to the owner of another vehicle that he damaged – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 38 R v Broadbridge[1994] QCA 278, referred R v Elliott[2000] QCA 267, cited R v Ferrari [1997] 2 Qd R 472; [1997] QCA 73, cited R v Matauaina[2011] QCA 344, cited R v Obern[2002] QCA 444, referred R v Pearce[2010] QCA 338, referred R v Theuerkauf & Theuerkauf; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 94, referred R v Tufuga & Kepu; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 171, referred
COUNSEL:	S A Lynch for the applicant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Masons Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent