R v Damrow

Case [2009] QCA 245

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Damrow [2009] QCA 245

PARTIES:

R
v
DAMROW, Jessica Lea
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 122 of 2009
DC No 42 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death – where one person killed – where stop sign missing at intersection and stop line faded – where sentencing judge found this was not a case of ‘momentary inattention’ – where applicant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after eight months for an operational period of 18 months – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(3)(b)

R v Anderson; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1998) 104 A Crim R 489; [1998] QCA 355, cited
R v Balfe[1998] QCA 14, cited
R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 154, considered
R v Hardes[2003] QCA 47, cited
R v Harris; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 392, cited
R v Hart[2008] QCA 199, cited
R v Manners; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2002) 132 A Crim R 363; [2002] QCA 301, cited
R v Murphy[2009] QCA 93, cited
R v Price[2005] QCA 52, cited
R v Wilson[2008] QCA 349, cited

COUNSEL:

C Heaton for the applicant
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Fraser JA.  I agree with the order proposed by Fraser JA and with his Honour's reasons.

  1. MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons and proposed order of Fraser JA.

  1. FRASER JA: On 13 May 2009, after a two day trial, the applicant was found guilty by a jury and convicted in the District Court of the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.  She was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after eight months for an operational period of 18 months.  The sentencing judge ordered that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two years.  She was also convicted on her plea of guilty but not further punished for an offence of unlicensed driving.

  1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.  The grounds of her proposed appeal are:

1.The learned sentencing Judge erred in deciding this was not a "rare case" which justified the imposition of a wholly suspended sentence…

Continue reading R v Damrow

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Damrow [2009] QCA 245
Case
[2009] QCA 245
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Damrow was heard in the court of appeal, where the applicant, Damrow, appealed against his sentence following a conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. The incident resulted in the death of one person, and the circumstances included a missing stop sign and a faded stop line at the intersection. The sentencing judge found that the incident was not a case of momentary inattention but rather a more deliberate act of dangerous driving. Damrow was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after serving eight months, with an operational period of 18 months. The applicant sought an appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on whether the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the specific circumstances of the dangerous driving incident, the loss of life, and the sentencing judge's findings. The court was also tasked with evaluating whether the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether there were any grounds for interference with the sentence imposed.

The court of appeal examined the principles governing sentencing for dangerous driving causing death and the criteria for determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive. The court noted that while the incident resulted in the death of one person, there were mitigating factors such as the missing stop sign and faded stop line. However, the court found that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for such a serious offence and did not find it to be manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore refused, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.