R v D'Arrigo; ex parte

Case [2004] QCA 399


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v D’Arrigo; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 399

PARTIES:

R
v
D’ARRIGO, Paul Joseph Thomas
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 315 of 2004
DC No 3125 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

26 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 October 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and McPherson JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.     Appeal allowed

2.     The sentence imposed on 8 September 2004 be set aside

3.     The respondent be imprisoned for three and a half years

4.     Declare the respondent has served one day of that term in custody, from 7 to 8 September 2004

5.     The five year licence suspension and disqualification remains in place

6.     A warrant should issue for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for 7 days pending execution

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where the respondent was convicted by a jury of the offence of dangerously operating a motor vehicle causing death – where the respondent was sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended for an operational period of five  years – where the Attorney-General appeals on the ground that the penalty is manifestly inadequate

Arnold v Trenerry (1997) 118 NTR 1, cited
Le & Le v R
[1996] 2 Qd R 516, cited
R v Boyle (1987) 34 A Crim R 202, cited
R v Conquest; ex parte Attorney-General [1995] QCA 567; CA No 395 of 1995, 19 December 1995, cited
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, cited
R v Hardes [2003] QCA 47; CA No 393 of 2002, 18 February 2004, cited
R v McGuigan [2004] QCA 381; CA No 285 of 2004, 15 October 2004, cited
R v MP [2004] QCA 170; CA No 42 of 2004, 20 May 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

L J Clare for the appellant
B G Devereaux for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The respondent was sentenced to three years' imprisonment suspended after the one day he had spent in custody for an operational period of five years.  He was disqualified for five years from holding a driver's licence.
The sentence followed his being convicted by a jury of the offence, committed on 8 January 2002, of dangerously operating a motor vehicle causing death.  The Attorney-General has appealed on the ground that the penalty is manifestly inadequate.

Some time after 4 o'clock on a Tuesday afternoon the respondent was driving along Wickham Street in Fortitude Valley when he…

Continue reading R v D'Arrigo; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v D'Arrigo; ex parte [2004] QCA 399
Case
[2004] QCA 399
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Attorney-General against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had sentenced the respondent, D’Arrigo, to three years imprisonment, suspended for an operational period of five years, for the offence of dangerously operating a motor vehicle causing death. The Attorney-General contended that the penalty was manifestly inadequate and sought an increase in the sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the penalty imposed on D’Arrigo was manifestly inadequate, warranting an increase in the sentence. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court examined the circumstances of the offence, including the respondent's actions leading to the death, and the need to balance the interests of justice with the principle of proportionality.

The court found that the penalty imposed was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the significant harm caused to the victim and their family. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation. The court set aside the original sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of three and a half years imprisonment, with one day already served in custody. The court also maintained the five-year licence suspension and disqualification from driving. A warrant for the arrest of the respondent was issued to enforce the new sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. The sentence imposed on 8 September 2004 be set aside

3. The respondent be imprisoned for three and a half years

4. Declare the respondent has served one day of that term in custody, from 7 to 8 September 2004

5. The five year licence suspension and disqualification remains in place

6. A warrant should issue for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for 7 days pending execution

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.