R v Blanch

Case [2008] QCA 253


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Blanch [2008] QCA 253

PARTIES:

R
v
BLANCH, Clinton John
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 87 of 2008
DC No 353 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2008

JUDGES:

Keane JA, Mackenzie AJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted1.   

Appeal allowed to the extent of deleting the parole eligibility date set below and inserting in place thereof
10 March 2010
2.   

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 GRANTED – GENERALLY – where the applicant/appellant was convicted of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – where the applicant/appellant pleaded guilty – where the applicant/appellant was 20 years old at the time of offending – where the applicant/appellant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set at two and a half years – whether the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive

R v Collier [2003] QCA 314, applied
R v Gray (2005) 44 MVR 167; [2005] QCA 280, applied
R v Hoad (2005) 43 MVR 475; [2005] QCA 92, cited
R v Sheedy; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2007] QCA 183, considered

COUNSEL:

J M McInnes for the applicant/appellant
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. KEANE JA:  On 10 March 2008 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance.  He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 10 September 2010, ie after serving two and a half years in actual custody.  He was also disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.

  1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offence

  1. At about 12.45 in the morning of 24 July 2005, the applicant drove his Holden Commodore sedan to a service station at Southport to refuel.  There were four passengers in his car.  They had been drinking and intended to go "pig chasing" at Canungra.  As a result of some contact with the driver and passengers of a Toyota MR2 at the service station, the applicant and the driver of the MR2 became involved in a high speed car chase which culminated in the applicant losing control of his vehicle and crashing into a concrete barrier on Bundall Road.  There was…

Continue reading R v Blanch

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Blanch [2008] QCA 253
Case
[2008] QCA 253
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Blanch, the appellant was convicted of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set at two and a half years. The appellant subsequently applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the appellant should be granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's age at the time of the offence, and the appellant's personal circumstances. The court also considered the sentencing principles applicable to the offence and the appropriate sentence for the offence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the appellant should be granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The court noted that the appellant was young at the time of the offence and had pleaded guilty, which were mitigating factors. However, the court also noted that the offence was serious and had resulted in the death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another. The court found that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances. The court deleted the parole eligibility date set at two and a half years and inserted in place thereof 10 March 2010.

The court allowed the appeal to the extent of deleting the parole eligibility date set below and inserting in place thereof 10 March 2010.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted1.

Appeal allowed to the extent of deleting the parole eligibility date set below and inserting in place thereof

10 March 20102.

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.