R v Covington - [2003] QCA 342

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Covington [2003] QCA 342
PARTIES: R

v 10
COVINGTON, Paul Adam
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 97 of 2003 DC No 28 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application

ORIGINATING 20

COURT: District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX 7 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 August 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,

each concurring as to the orders made 30
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
and appeal allowed to the following extent. Instead of the
sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed at first
instance, substitute a sentence of three years’
imprisonment to be suspended after 15 months with an
operational period of four years
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – 40
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT – where applicant convicted of dangerous
operation of a motor vehicle with circumstance of
aggravation – where applicant sentenced to five years
imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a

drivers licence for five years – where applicant also dealt with for summary offence of driving whilst disqualified – where applicant had extensive traffic history – where co- offender sentenced to lesser sentence – whether sentence disparate and manifestly excessive in all the circumstances 50

R v Cusak [2000] QCA 239; CA No 90 of 2002, 16 June
2000, considered
R v Fripp [2003] QCA 4; CA No 345 of 2002, 29 January
2003, considered
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, considered and 408 of 1995, 10 May 1996, considered
1 60

COUNSEL: G M McGuire for the applicant
L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Canning Craymer Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant, together with Cooke and Young	10
was charged with two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with the circumstances of aggravation of causing both death and grievous bodily harm. All three pleaded not guilty.
Young was acquitted on all counts and discharged. Cooke was
convicted only on the second count of dangerous operation of a	20
motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation, and the
applicant convicted only on the alternate count of dangerous
operation of a motor vehicle with circumstances of
aggravation. The offence occurred on the 13th of May 2002.
Cooke was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment and	30
was disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence
for three years. The applicant was sentenced to five years
imprisonment and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a
drivers licence for five years. Covington was also dealt with
for the summary matter of driving whilst disqualified, to	40
which he pleaded guilty and for which he was given no further punishment. He applies for leave to appeal against that sentence, contending that it is manifestly excessive.
The maximum penalty for the indictable offences was seven

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 Covington

Details

AGLC: R v Covington [2003] QCA 342
Case: [2003] QCA 342
Decision Date: 7/08/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Covington involved the appellant, who was convicted of dangerous driving resulting in death. The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, seeking a reduction in the term of imprisonment. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal, which had the authority to review and potentially alter the sentence imposed at the first instance.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of five years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and thus warranted adjustment. The court was tasked with considering the appropriate factors to take into account when assessing the severity of a sentence for such an offence. This involved an examination of the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and any mitigating circumstances that may have influenced the initial sentencing decision.

In its judgment, the court of appeal acknowledged the gravity of the offence, recognising that driving with dangerous recklessness resulting in death was a serious criminal act. However, the court also considered various mitigating factors presented, including the appellant's otherwise unblemished character, genuine remorse, and the impact of the offence on his family. The court concluded that the original sentence was excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentence to three years' imprisonment, suspended after 15 months, with an operational period of four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

and appeal allowed to the following extent. Instead of the

sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed at first

instance, substitute a sentence of three years’

imprisonment to be suspended after 15 months with an

operational period of four years

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.

COUNSEL:	G M McGuire for the applicant L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Canning Craymer Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent