R v Cockburn

Case [2002] QCA 461


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cockburn [2002] QCA 461

PARTIES:

R
v
COCKBURN, Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 259 of 2002
DC No 88 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

31 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –DRIVING OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with the circumstance of aggravation that he was adversely affect by alcohol – where applicant sentenced to  2 years nine months’ imprisonment, with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after 15 months and absolute disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence – where applicant subjected to partial activation of a four month suspended sentence –  whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Queensland, s 328A(3)(b)

R v Whye [1997] QCA 320; CA No 234 of 1997, 17 July 1997, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  On the 17th of July 2002 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Rockhampton to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with the circumstance of aggravation that he was at the time adversely affected by alcohol.  He was sentenced to two years nine months' imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after the serving of 15 months of that term.  He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. 

He was at the time subjected to the partial activation of a four month suspended sentence which had been imposed on the 26th of November 2001 for breach of a domestic violence order.  He was ordered to serve two months of that suspended sentence cumulatively upon the two year nine months term, the subject of this application.  He was additionally disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.

The offence occurred late on Saturday afternoon.  A police officer saw the applicant within his vehicle on the Bruce Highway north of St Lawrence.  The applicant was alone.  The police officer illuminated the lights on his vehicle, whereupon the applicant sped off along the highway at speeds of up to 160 kilometres per hour. 

He twice crossed double white lines, apparently in an effort to get away.  On one of those occasions he was on the blind side of a hill.  The police followed him over approximately 50 kilometres. 

The applicant slowed down, but apparently when he saw the police cars coming towards him he suddenly stopped his vehicle, carried out a U-turn, and after travelling a further 100 metres or so drove onto the wrong side of the road and…

Continue reading R v Cockburn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cockburn [2002] QCA 461
Case
[2002] QCA 461
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Cockburn, the applicant had pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, with the aggravating circumstance that he was adversely affected by alcohol. The court sentenced the applicant to two years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after 15 months and an absolute disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. The applicant was also subjected to a partial activation of a four-month suspended sentence. The applicant sought to appeal the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and unjust, given the circumstances of the offence and his background. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant statutory provisions, including the maximum penalty for the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also took into account the principles of parity, which require that similar offenders be treated similarly, and proportionality, which requires that the punishment fit the crime.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the applicant had a history of driving offences and had shown a lack of remorse for his actions. The court also considered the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, and the need to protect the community from the risk of harm posed by the applicant. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and was consistent with the sentencing principles and relevant statutory provisions. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the offence and the need to balance the interests of the community and the applicant.

The application was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is 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.