R v Frost; ex parte A-G - [2004] QCA 309

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Frost; ex parte A-G [2004] QCA 309

PARTIES:

R
v
FROST, Robert Alistair
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 142 of 2004
DC No 91 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

27 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McPherson and Jerrard JJA concurring as to the order made, Helman J dissenting

ORDER:

Allow the appeal to the extent of removing the recommendation for early consideration for post prison community based release

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 – where respondent convicted on own plea of guilty to dangerous driving causing death while adversely affected by alcohol – where prolonged period of dangerous driving causing the deaths of three people – where respondent severely intoxicated – where no remorse shown at time of incident – where respondent sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for PPCBR after three and a half years – whether sentence manifestly inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM – GENERALLY – where a charge is brought against a person arising out of death following a road accident - whether appropriate charge is dangerous driving causing death or manslaughter – charge of manslaughter appropriate in the most serious of cases

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 135(2)(c)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 157(7)

R v Sanderson [1998] QCA 237; CA No 134 of 1998, 15 July 1998, considered
R v Vessey; ex parte A-G [1996] QCA 011; CA No 453 of 1995, 16 February 1996, considered
R v Wilde; ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 135 A Crim R 538, considered
R v Wooler [1971] QWN 10, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
M J Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Jerrard JA. The Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence should be allowed by removing the recommendation for parole after three and a half years.

JERRARD JA: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General arguing that a sentence of nine years imprisonment imposed on Robert Frost, together with a recommendation that he be eligible for post prison community based release after three and a half years, was manifestly inadequate. Mr Frost received that sentence of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to an offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, while adversely affected by alcohol.

The offence was committed on 24 April 2003 at Mackay, when Mr Frost killed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Frost; ex parte A-G and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QCA 309
Decision Date: 27 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Frost; ex parte A-G, the Attorney-General sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on Frost, who had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death while adversely affected by alcohol. The incident involved prolonged dangerous driving resulting in the deaths of three individuals, with Frost being severely intoxicated and displaying no remorse. The court initially sentenced Frost to nine years imprisonment, with a recommendation that he be eligible for post prison community based release after three and a half years. The Attorney-General argued that this sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Frost was manifestly inadequate. This involved considering the severity of the offence, Frost's level of intoxication, his lack of remorse, and the impact of his actions on the victims and their families. The court also had to determine whether the charge of dangerous driving causing death was appropriate, given the circumstances, or if a charge of manslaughter would have been more suitable.

The court, in allowing the appeal to the extent of removing the recommendation for early consideration for post prison community based release, found that the sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, the prolonged nature of the dangerous driving, and the lack of remorse shown by Frost. The court concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence or serve as a sufficient deterrent. The court's decision highlighted the need for sentences to appropriately reflect the severity of dangerous driving causing death and to ensure public safety and confidence in the justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Allow the appeal to the extent of removing the recommendation for early consideration for post prison community based release

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.

CITATION:	R v Frost; ex parte A-G [2004] QCA 309
PARTIES:	R v FROST, Robert Alistair (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 142 of 2004 DC No 91 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	27 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 August 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McPherson and Jerrard JJA concurring as to the order made, Helman J dissenting
ORDER:	Allow the appeal to the extent of removing the recommendation for early consideration for post prison community based release
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 – where respondent convicted on own plea of guilty to dangerous driving causing death while adversely affected by alcohol – where prolonged period of dangerous driving causing the deaths of three people – where respondent severely intoxicated – where no remorse shown at time of incident – where respondent sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for PPCBR after three and a half years – whether sentence manifestly inadequate CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM – GENERALLY – where a charge is brought against a person arising out of death following a road accident - whether appropriate charge is dangerous driving causing death or manslaughter – charge of manslaughter appropriate in the most serious of cases Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 135(2)(c) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 157(7) R v Sanderson [1998] QCA 237; CA No 134 of 1998, 15 July 1998, considered R v Vessey; ex parte A-G [1996] QCA 011; CA No 453 of 1995, 16 February 1996, considered R v Wilde; ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 135 A Crim R 538, considered R v Wooler [1971] QWN 10, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant M J Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent