R v Bussey - [2003] QCA 197

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197

PARTIES:

R
v
BUSSEY, Brett John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 82 of 2003

DC No 17 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

12 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Wilson J

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 – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant convicted on own plea of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where sentenced to two years’ imprisonment to be suspended after six months with an operational period of two years and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for two years – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Conquest; ex parte Attorney-General [1995] QCA 567, considered

R v Hardes [2003] QCA 47, considered

R v Pollock [2003] QCA 119, considered

R v Theuerkauf and Theuerkauf; ex parte Attorney-General [2003] QCA 94, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment to be suspended after six months with an operational period of two years. I note that the maximum which might have been imposed was seven years' imprisonment. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two years.

The appeal is on the ground that the sentence was excessive in all of the circumstances.

The applicant was born on 2 December 1964. The offence was committed on 6 July 2002 when he was aged 37. He had no criminal history. He had a traffic history consisting of three speeding offences in 2001 to 2002 and one failure to wear a seatbelt in 1992. He was a carpenter by trade with his own building company. He had been married for 14 years to 1996 and there were four children of the marriage. At the sentence he was in a relationship of five years' standing.

The complainant and the applicant were not previously acquainted. They had both attended a business party associated with the opening of a new legalised brothel in Mackay. A verbal altercation took place between the applicant and one of the complainant's friends. The applicant was asked to leave. He drove away in his Toyota Landcruiser. There was a passenger travelling with…

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 Bussey 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: [2003] QCA 197
Decision Date: 12 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bussey involved the appellant, who had been convicted on his own plea of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The court sentenced the appellant to two years' imprisonment, which was suspended after six months, with an operational period of two years. Additionally, the appellant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license for two years. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant contended that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed, considering the circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court needed to assess whether the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, taking into account all relevant factors.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's personal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the offence. The sentence was deemed appropriate given the gravity of the harm caused and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also noted the operational period and the disqualification from driving, which aimed to protect public safety and encourage rehabilitation. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the 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 Bussey [2003] QCA 197
PARTIES:	R v BUSSEY, Brett John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 82 of 2003 DC No 17 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	12 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 May 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Wilson J 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 – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant convicted on own plea of one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where sentenced to two years’ imprisonment to be suspended after six months with an operational period of two years and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for two years – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Conquest; ex parte Attorney-General [1995] QCA 567, considered R v Hardes [2003] QCA 47, considered R v Pollock [2003] QCA 119, considered R v Theuerkauf and Theuerkauf; ex parte Attorney-General [2003] QCA 94, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent