R v Dacre - [1996] QCA 311

[1996] QCA 311

COURT OF APPEAL

DERRINGTON J
MACKENZIE J
WHITE J

CA No 206 of 1996

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW MICHAEL DACRE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 30/07/96

JUDGMENT

MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to offences of dangerous driving with the circumstance of aggravation that he was under the influence of liquor, driving whilst under the influence of liquor and failing to remain at the scene of an accident in callous disregard of the person injured.

The plea of guilty for the first charge was not timely, being entered only on the morning of the hearing, which occasioned inconvenience and expense to a police witness who had to be brought back from holidays. That, of course, is not an aggravating circumstance as far as penalty is concerned; it merely indicates that the plea was late. The intention to plead guilty to the other offences had been notified in good time.

Having considered the statements in the matter, the Magistrate decided to exercise summary jurisdiction. He sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 12 months for the aggravated dangerous driving, two months imprisonment for driving whilst under the influence of liquor; and six months imprisonment for the callous disregard offence. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

The present application is in respect of the sentence of 12 months imprisonment only. We have been told that there are appeals in another place in respect of the other sentences.

The Magistrate noted that under section 31 (4) of the Traffic Act, it was mandatory that a period of imprisonment be imposed as all or part of the punishment for the callous disregard offence.

The blood alcohol concentration involved was .137 per cent.

The relevant driving occurred in Sheridan Street, Cairns, in the late afternoon. According to one eye witness, who was behind the applicant, he was driving impatiently and erratically in a line of traffic. Another driver who was in front of him said the applicant was driving erratically and appeared to be trying to force him to speed up. That driver said he waved his arm, intending to convey to the applicant that he should slow down and back off. Shortly after that driver had moved into a right-turn lane, the appellant drew level in the lane that the witness had just vacated, lent out of the driver's window, shaking his fist and abusing him. That witness, and another witness, estimated the vehicles were travelling at about 60 kilometres an hour.

While the applicant was engaged in the abuse, he failed to observe that there were vehicles stationary in front of him and collided with the rear vehicle. This caused a chain reaction involving a motor cyclist, who was in front of the vehicle struck, and another vehicle in front of the motor cycle. The motor cyclist was thrown into the gutter and suffered significant lacerations. Another driver, according to the material before the Magistrate, suffered neck and lower back pain.

After the collision, the applicant reversed, drove on for a short…

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 Dacre

Details

AGLC: R v Dacre [1996] QCA 311
Case: [1996] QCA 311
Decision Date: 30/07/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Matthew Michael Dacre, the applicant, Matthew Michael Dacre, pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while under the influence of alcohol, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident in callous disregard of the person injured. The applicant's guilty plea for the first charge was entered late, causing inconvenience and expense to a police witness. The applicant had timely notified his intention to plead guilty to the other charges. The Magistrate exercised summary jurisdiction, sentencing the applicant to 12 months imprisonment for aggravated dangerous driving, two months for driving under the influence, and six months for the callous disregard offence, all to be served concurrently. The appeal focused solely on the 12-month sentence for aggravated dangerous driving.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the Magistrate's sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the aggravated dangerous driving was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence should not have included imprisonment, considering his previous good character and lack of prior convictions. The court had to determine if the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence, including the applicant's erratic and aggressive driving while under the influence of alcohol, his failure to remain at the scene of the accident, and his subsequent return to the scene.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application, found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged that the applicant's actions were not a case of momentary inattention but rather a course of impatient and erratic driving and aggression towards another road user. The circumstances of the offence, including the applicant's calculated decision to leave the scene, justified the Magistrate's view that the offence was relatively serious. The court considered the principle of totality in sentencing and noted that the applicant had multiple opportunities to reflect on his actions but still chose to drive while under the influence of alcohol. Given the serious nature of the incident and the applicant's failure to display genuine remorse, the court found that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment.

Orders