Legal Research
Cases
R v Glenbar

R v Glenbar

Case [2013] QCA 353 29 November 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Glenbar [2013] QCA 353

PARTIES:

R
v
GLENBAR, Brett Walter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2013
SC No 163 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 October 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Morrison JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Morrison JA and Mullins J concurring as to the order made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant drove a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at high speed after refusing to stop for police – where the applicant failed to negotiate a bend, struck and killed two pedestrians and caused grievous bodily harm to his passenger – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter, one count of doing grievous bodily harm and four related summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count of manslaughter, four years imprisonment on the count of doing grievous bodily harm and convicted but not further punished in respect of the summary offences – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors such as demonstrated rehabilitation, remorse and insight, together with an early guilty plea – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in considering that the nine year term in R v Clark constrained her from imposing a similar sentence in the present case – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in failing to have proper regard to the serious aggravating effect of a sentence of 10 years imprisonment – whether sentencing judge erred

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Armstrong, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 399 of 2010 and 657 of 2011, Mullins J, 10 August 2011, cited
R v Collins, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 71 and 519 of 2012, Mullins J, 19 November 2012, cited
R v Clark[2009] QCA 361, distinguished
R v Derks[2011] QCA 295, considered
R v Folland[2004] QCA 209, cited
R v Frost; ex parte A-G (2004) 149 A Crim R 151; [2004] QCA 309, cited
R v Kelly[1999] QCA 296, distinguished
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v Noble and Verheyden [1996] 1 Qd R 329; [1994] QCA 283, cited
R v Robertson[2010] QCA 319, considered
R v Wooler [1971] QWN 10, cited

COUNSEL:

J B Godbolt for the applicant (pro bono)
B J Power for the respondent

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 Glenbar

Details

AGLC: R v Glenbar [2013] QCA 353
Case: [2013] QCA 353
Decision Date: 29 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who was found guilty of multiple charges including two counts of manslaughter, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. The applicant had driven a vehicle while intoxicated at high speed, failed to stop for police, failed to negotiate a bend, resulting in the death of two pedestrians and grievous bodily harm to his passenger. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for each count of manslaughter, four years for the grievous bodily harm charge, and no further punishment for the summary offences. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered mitigating factors such as his demonstrated rehabilitation, remorse, insight, and early guilty plea. He also argued that the sentencing judge had incorrectly considered herself constrained by a previous case, R v Clark, and that she had failed to give proper consideration to the serious aggravating effect of a 10-year imprisonment sentence.

The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in her assessment of the mitigating factors, her consideration of the previous case, and her evaluation of the seriousness of the 10-year imprisonment sentence. The court assessed the applicant’s arguments and examined the sentencing judge’s reasons to determine if there was any error in her assessment or application of the law. The court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the mitigating factors and had not been constrained by the previous case. The court also found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the seriousness of the 10-year imprisonment sentence. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no error in the sentencing decision.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Glenbar [2013] QCA 353

Most Recent Citation

R v Pavey-Rees [2020] QCA 29

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Johnston
[2025] QCA 112 Para 13

…after serving 32 months’ imprisonment. [2] R v Kelly [1999] QCA 296; R v Pavey-Rees [2020] QCA 29; R v Derks [2011] QCA 295; R v Glenbar [2013] QCA 353; R v Clark [2009] QCA 361.…
R v Hughes
[2025] QCA 72 Para 13

…On the hearing in this Court, the applicant also relied on R v Glenbar [2013] QCA 353 which was not separately relied on before the sentencing judge but was summarised in detail in Pavey-Rees at [13]-[14]. It is not surprising that it was not put before the sentencing judge as a comparable authority as the aggrav…
R v YTZ; Ex parte; R v YTZ
[2023] QCA 87

…ed R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, cited R v Glenbar (2013) 240 A Crim R 22; [2013] QCA 353, cited R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] QCA 63, cited R v Maygar; ex parte A-G (Qld); R v WT; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 310, considered R v Pavey-Rees [2020] QCA 29, cited R v William (a p…
R v Pavey-Rees
[2020] QCA 29 Para 10

…isonment with the automatic serious violent offence declaration. [1][1999] QCA 296. [2][2009] QCA 361. [3][2010] QCA 319. [4][2011] QCA 295. [5][2013] QCA 353. Manifest excess?…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Derks
[2011] QCA 295 Para 1

…orse; the applicant’s excellent work history; his efforts whilst in custody; and his excellent prospects of rehabilitation. [14][2009] QCA 361. [15][2011] QCA 295. [16][2004] QCA 209. [17]Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 71 and 519 of 2012, Mullins J, 19 November 2012. [18]Unreported, Supre…
R v Robertson
[2010] QCA 319 Para 1

…ullins J, 19 November 2012. [18]Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 399 of 2010 and 657 of 2011, Mullins J, 10 August 2011. [19][2010] QCA 319.…
R v Clark
[2009] QCA 361 Para 1

…e expressions of remorse; the applicant’s excellent work history; his efforts whilst in custody; and his excellent prospects of rehabilitation. [14][2009] QCA 361. [15][2011] QCA 295. [16][2004] QCA 209. [17]Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 71 and 519 of 2012, Mullins J, 19 November 2012. […
R v Mokoena
[2009] QCA 36 Para 1

…am content to adopt those summaries, with some additional comments. [49] R v Kelly [1999] QCA 296. [50] R v Robertson [2010] QCA 319. [51] R v Clark [2009] QCA 36. [52] R v Derks [2011] QCA 295.…
R v Mooka
[2007] QCA 36

…[62]See R v Mooka [2007] QCA 36 per the Chief Justice at p 9 and R v Whiting ; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [1994] QCA 425 per Davies JA, McPherson JA and Derrington J at p 7.…
R v McDougall and Collas
[2006] QCA 365 Para 1

…ng a sentence of 10 rather than nine years: R v McDougall and Collas .[23] The sentencing judge erred in not giving proper weight to this factor. [23][2006] QCA 365.…
R v Lavender
[2005] HCA 37

…te A-G (2004) 149 A Crim R 151; [2004] QCA 309, cited R v Kelly [1999] QCA 296, distinguished R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Noble and Verheyden [1996] 1 Qd R 329; [1994] QCA 283, cited R v Robertson [2010] QCA 319, consid…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…ting effect of a sentence of 10 years imprisonment – whether sentencing judge erred Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Armstrong , Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 399 of 2010 and 657 of 2011, Mullins J, 10 August 2011, cited R v Collins , Unreported, Suprem…
R v Frost; ex parte A-G
[2004] QCA 309 Para 1

…years):[25] see R v Frost; ex parte A-G [26] and R v Wooler .[27] [24]Section 310, Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). [25]Section 328A(4), Criminal Code . [26][2004] QCA 309. [27][1971] QWN 10.…
R v Folland
[2004] QCA 209 Para 1

…s excellent work history; his efforts whilst in custody; and his excellent prospects of rehabilitation. [14][2009] QCA 361. [15][2011] QCA 295. [16][2004] QCA 209. [17]Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 71 and 519 of 2012, Mullins J, 19 November 2012. [18]Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensla…
R v Kelly
[1999] QCA 296 Para 1

…iven proper benefit for the many mitigating factors, the judge must have commenced from a starting point well in excess of 10 years imprisonment. [22][1999] QCA 296.…
R v Whiting; ex parte Attorney-General
[1994] QCA 425

…[62]See R v Mooka [2007] QCA 36 per the Chief Justice at p 9 and R v Whiting ; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [1994] QCA 425 per Davies JA, McPherson JA and Derrington J at p 7.…
R v Noble
[1994] QCA 283

…05] HCA 37, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Noble and Verheyden [1996] 1 Qd R 329; [1994] QCA 283, cited R v Robertson [2010] QCA 319, considered R v Wooler [1971] QWN 10, cited COUNSEL: J B Godbolt for the applicant (pro bono) B J Power for the respondent SOLICITORS: AW…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Glenbar [2013] QCA 353
PARTIES:	R v GLENBAR, Brett Walter (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 67 of 2013 SC No 163 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 October 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Morrison JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Morrison JA and Mullins J concurring as to the order made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant drove a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at high speed after refusing to stop for police – where the applicant failed to negotiate a bend, struck and killed two pedestrians and caused grievous bodily harm to his passenger – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter, one count of doing grievous bodily harm and four related summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count of manslaughter, four years imprisonment on the count of doing grievous bodily harm and convicted but not further punished in respect of the summary offences – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors such as demonstrated rehabilitation, remorse and insight, together with an early guilty plea – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in considering that the nine year term in R v Clark constrained her from imposing a similar sentence in the present case – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in failing to have proper regard to the serious aggravating effect of a sentence of 10 years imprisonment – whether sentencing judge erred Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Armstrong, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 399 of 2010 and 657 of 2011, Mullins J, 10 August 2011, cited R v Collins, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Indictment Nos 71 and 519 of 2012, Mullins J, 19 November 2012, cited R v Clark[2009] QCA 361, distinguished R v Derks[2011] QCA 295, considered R v Folland[2004] QCA 209, cited R v Frost; ex parte A-G (2004) 149 A Crim R 151; [2004] QCA 309, cited R v Kelly[1999] QCA 296, distinguished R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Noble and Verheyden [1996] 1 Qd R 329; [1994] QCA 283, cited R v Robertson[2010] QCA 319, considered R v Wooler [1971] QWN 10, cited
COUNSEL:	J B Godbolt for the applicant (pro bono) B J Power for the respondent