R v Anderson; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [1998] QCA 355

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 355
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 284 of 1998

Brisbane
[R v. Anderson; ex parte A-G]

THE QUEEN

CLINTON WAYNE ANDERSON

Respondent

EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

McMurdo P.
McPherson J.A.
Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 10 November 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, McPherson JA dissenting
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL - Attorney’s appeal against sentence - whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate - dangerous driving causing death of infant - non-custodial sentence imposed by learned sentencing judge.
R. v. Atkinson; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland C.A. No.
459 of 1996, delivered 20 December 1996
R. v. Brown; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland C.A. No. 167
of 1993, delivered 4 August 1993
Calder (1986) 22 A. Crim. R. 62
Dee (1985) 19 A. Crim. R. 224
Everett and Phillips v. The Queen (1994) 68 A.L.J.R. 875
R. v. Fatseas and Brooks C.A. Nos. 255 and 258 of 1995, delivered 17
August 1995
R. v. Gartside C.A. No. 374 of 1994, delivered 15 November 1994
Lahey v. Sanderson [1959] Tas. S.R. 17
McBridge v. The Queen (1966) 115 C.L.R. 44
R. v. Melano; ex parte Attorney-General [1995] 2 Qd.R. 186
R. v. Nowraty C.A. No. 371 of 1989, delivered 26 February 1990
R. v. Pope; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland C.A. No. 271 of
1996, delivered 30 August 1996
R. v. Price [1978] Q.R. 68
R. v. Smith; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland C.A. No. 80 of
1989, delivered 3 May 1989
R. v. Stutchbury C.A. No. 196 of 1989, delivered 31 August 1989
R. v. Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd.R. 330
R. v. Wilton (1981) 28 S.A.S.R. 362
R. v. Woods C.A. No. 368 of 1990, delivered 4 March 1991
Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) 1992
Counsel: Mr W. Clark for the appellant
Mr P. Leask for the respondent
Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Hearing date: 8 October 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P.

Judgment delivered 10 November 1998

I have read the reasons for judgment prepared by Shepherdson J. who has carefully and fully set out the relevant facts in this case.
All drivers, and especially the young and inexperienced, must understand the great responsibility involved when driving a motor vehicle. The respondent in this case showed great irresponsibility in his driving. He was unlicensed because of traffic infringements and had been drinking alcohol, although there is no suggestion his drinking was causative of the accident. He admitted driving his utility truck with less than satisfactory brakes, into the setting sun with a very dirty windscreen through which it was difficult to see. These factors however were also not causative of the accident. The respondent was driving the utility truck down a suburban street where the presence of children and pedestrians could be expected. It is not suggested that his speed, which was less than the 60 kph speed limit, was excessive. He…

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 R v Anderson; ex parte A-G (Qld) 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: [1998] QCA 355
Decision Date: 10/11/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anderson; ex parte A-G (Qld), the Attorney General of Queensland sought to appeal against the sentence imposed on Anderson, who had been convicted of dangerous driving causing the death of an infant. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court, where the primary issue was the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge. Anderson had been found guilty of dangerous driving which resulted in the death of a young child, and the Attorney General argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the gravity of the offence.

The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate, given the circumstances of the case. The Attorney General contended that the non-custodial sentence was insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offence, and that a more punitive measure was warranted to serve as a deterrent and to provide justice for the deceased child. The court had to balance the sentencing principles and the specific facts of the case, including the culpability of the offender and the impact of the offence on the victim and the community.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles and the context of the offence, taking into account the gravity of the crime and the need for the sentence to reflect the community’s standards of justice. It was noted that while the sentencing judge had considered the relevant factors, the court found that the sentence did not adequately address the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the non-custodial sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that a more punitive approach was necessary. Consequently, the court set aside the original sentence and imposed a custodial sentence, which was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the original sentence be set aside and replaced with a custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the community’s standards of justice. The court emphasised the importance of sentencing that appropriately accounts for the seriousness of offences involving dangerous driving and resulting in death, particularly when vulnerable individuals are affected.

Orders