R v Bagust - [2003] QCA 385

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Bagust [2003] QCA 385
PARTIES: R
v
BAGUST, Adam Wayne
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 182 of 2003 DC No 124 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX 3 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 September 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT - where applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous
operation of a motor vehicle and other summary offences –
where applicant sentenced to six month’s imprisonment to be
served by way of an intensive correction order and
disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 12
months – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)
COUNSEL: K M McGuinness for the applicant
D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 8th of May 2003 to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle on 5 October 2002. He was sentenced to six month's imprisonment

to be served by way of an intensive correction order and
disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for
12 months. He also pleaded guilty and was sentenced with the
following summary offences, also occurring on 5 October 2002:
disqualified driving, driving an unroadworthy motor vehicle,
driving an unregistered motor vehicle and driving and
uninsured motor vehicle. He was not further punished for
those offences.

He contends the sentence imposed on the offence of dangerous driving was manifestly excessive. The applicant had no relevant criminal history but had been fined on 17 September 2002 for behaving in a disorderly manner. His traffic history included a conviction for unlicensed driving and driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level reading of .053 on 13 April 2002 for which he was fined $300 and disqualified from driving for six months. He was also disqualified from driving at the time he committed this offence.

On 5 October 2002 police had received complaints about an unregistered and noisy vehicle performing burnouts in the area of Minehane Street Cluden. Police officers were in that area dealing with an unrelated matter when they heard an extremely loud noise and observed a red sedan coming from the end of Minehane Street at excessive speed. The vehicle turned right into Racecourse Road turning in front of another vehicle stopped at a stop sign, missing it by about a metre. The red vehicle was unregistered and without windows, windscreen or lighting.

The police immediately operated their flashing lights and sirens and drove to intercept the vehicle which they followed along Racecourse Road, a 60 kph area, at speeds…

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 Bagust

Details

AGLC: R v Bagust [2003] QCA 385
Case: [2003] QCA 385
Decision Date: 3/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bagust was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent, Bagust, sought leave to appeal against his sentence. Bagust was found guilty of several criminal offences and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in the principles applied or in the application of those principles, leading to an inappropriate sentence.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the gravity of the crime, the personal circumstances of Bagust, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The respondent argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the case. The court considered the principles of sentencing and whether there was a miscarriage of justice that warranted an appeal.

In its decision, the court found that the sentencing judge had followed the appropriate legal principles and had given due consideration to all relevant factors. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed. Consequently, the High Court refused Bagust's application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Bagust [2003] QCA 385
PARTIES:	R v BAGUST, Adam Wayne (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 182 of 2003 DC No 124 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX	3 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - where applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and other summary offences – where applicant sentenced to six month’s imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order and disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 12 months – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)
COUNSEL:	K M McGuinness for the applicant D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent