R v Balfe - [1998] QCA 14

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 014
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 444 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Balfe]

THE QUEEN

ALBERT JAMES BALFE

(Applicant)
Fitzgerald P
McPherson JA
Byrne J

Judgment delivered 20 February 1998

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - appeal against sentence for dangerous driving causing death.
Counsel:	Mrs D. Richards for the applicant Mr D. Bullock for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent
Hearing Date:	11 February 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 20 February 1998

After his trial in the Maroochydore District Court, the applicant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence contending that it is manifestly excessive.

Shortly before noon on 26 August 1996, the applicant was driving a prime-mover drawing a semi-trailer heavily laden with 43 tonnes of crusher dust in a southerly direction along Glasshouse Mountains Road heading towards an intersection with Red and Beerburrum Roads. It was a sunny day. The weather was clear. The condition of the road was unremarkable.

The speed limit for traffic approaching the intersection was 80 kph. One lane carried southbound traffic. At the intersection itself, there were three lanes. Vehicles intending to turn right into Beerburrum Road were to be contained within the continuation of the southbound lane. Another permitted southbound vehicles to pass to the left of those turning right into Beerburrum Road. The third branched off into Red Road. A driver who, like the applicant, approached the intersection from the north had an unobstructed view of the intersection for about 350 metres.

Two brothers, aged 20 and 18, were seated in a utility motor vehicle which was stationary at the intersection, facing south and waiting for an opportunity to turn right into Beerburrum Road. The prime-mover struck the car, pushing it quite some distance along the road. When the two vehicles came to rest, the prime-mover was over the utility section of the car. Both the car and the prime-mover were destroyed by fire. The two young men were killed.

Mr Curry testified to having followed the semi-trailer for about 5 or 10 kilometres during which time it travelled at about 80 kph. His impression was that the brake lights of the prime-mover came on at about the same time as the impact with the utility. Other evidence also indicated that the applicant had not slowed the prime-mover before impact. Mr Young thought that the car had been stationary for about 120 seconds when the collision occurred. He saw the prime mover hit the car but did not hear any sound indicative of the hard application of brakes before impact. There were no skid marks on the road leading to the point of collision. From the place where the utility was struck, there were gouge, scratch and tyre marks for a little more than 115m.

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 Balfe

Details

AGLC: R v Balfe [1998] QCA 14
Case: [1998] QCA 14
Decision Date: 20/02/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Balfe, the appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The deceased, a pedestrian, was struck by the appellant’s vehicle while crossing a road. The appellant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He sought to appeal the sentence, arguing it was excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the degree of danger involved, the appellant's driving history, and the impact on the deceased's family. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence should be reduced, citing factors such as the appellant's otherwise unblemished record and remorse shown. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of the offence and the loss of life.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for dangerous driving causing death, highlighting the need for deterrence and denunciation. It acknowledged the appellant’s remorse but emphasised the public interest in ensuring that such offences are met with significant penalties to deter others. After a thorough analysis of the circumstances, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of imprisonment remained in place. The court did not alter the sentence, affirming that the punishment imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders