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 2004DIVISION:
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 madeORDERS:
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, citedCOUNSEL:
L J Clare for the appellant
B G Devereaux for the respondentSOLICITORS:
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
- AGLC
- R v D'Arrigo; ex parte [2004] QCA 399
- Case
- [2004] QCA 399
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.