SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Bains [2008] QCA 247
PARTIES:
R
v
BAINS, Amarjit Singh
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 335 of 2007
DC No 2327 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
22 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 June 2008
JUDGES:
Keane and Fraser JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – where the applicant had a significant and relevant criminal history – where the applicant suffered from an organic brain injury that affected his general cognition – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date fixed after two years and six months imprisonment – whether in the circumstances the sentence was manifestly excessive
Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1, cited
R v Armstrong [2007] QCA 146, cited
R v Bains [2008] QDC 106, affirmed
R v Balic (2005) 44 MVR 35; [2005] QCA 212, cited
R v Cook; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2007) 48 MVR 65; [2007] QCA 100, cited
R v Dingle[2003] QCA 7, cited
R v Evans [2005] QCA 455, cited
R v Hey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 23, considered
R v McKinnon[1999] QCA 75, cited
R v Neumann; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] 1 Qd R 53;
[2005] QCA 362, cited
R v Sheedy; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2007] QCA 183, cited
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81, citedCOUNSEL:
Applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
KEANE JA: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and with the order proposed by his Honour.
FRASER JA: On 22 November 2007 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. He also pleaded guilty to two summary offences, driving over the general but under the high alcohol limit and driving whilst disqualified by court order.
He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date fixed after he had served a period of two and a half years. He was disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a drivers licence. In respect of the two summary matters he was convicted but not…
Continue reading R v. Bains
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Bains [2008] QCA 247
- Case
- [2008] QCA 247
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue for the court was to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the applicant's criminal history and organic brain injury. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether it took into account the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The court also needed to examine whether the sentence was proportionate to the offence and whether it was in line with sentencing principles and relevant case law.
The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant's criminal history and the mitigating effect of his organic brain injury. The court was satisfied that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and took into account all relevant mitigating factors. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offence. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The sentence of six years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after two years and six months, was upheld.
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.