R v Grabovica - [2012] QCA 180

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Grabovica [2012] QCA 180

PARTIES:

R
v
GRABOVICA, Adnan
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 285 of 2011
DC No 1144 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 April 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA, and Ann Lyons J
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 − PARTICULAR OFFENCES − DRIVING OFFENCES − GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE − SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE − where 17 year old applicant convicted on plea of guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while excessively speeding – where two of four persons who suffered grievous bodily harm were injured extremely severely – where applicant was travelling at between 104 and 118 kilometres per hour at time of collision – where applicant was evading police and travelling near a school at a time when other lawful traffic could reasonably be expected – where applicant said he had “blacked out” and could not remember much of the incident – where applicant had traffic history and his licence had been suspended at time of offence – where appropriate sentencing range identified by the primary judge was not challenged – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995] QCA 80, cited
R v Johnson [2011] QCA 78, considered
R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93, cited
R v Simpson [2003] QCA 100, considered
R v Tabakovic [2005] QCA 90, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the applicant
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: On 20 October 2011 the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, with the circumstance of aggravation that he was excessively speeding. He was sentenced on the same day to five years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date fixed on 20 June 2013 (after 20 months). The applicant was disqualified absolutely from holding a driver’s licence. The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offence

The applicant held a provisional driver’s licence which permitted him to drive only automatic transmission cars and did not permit him to drive a turbo-charged vehicle. At the time of the offence, that licence was suspended and the applicant was driving a car with a turbo-charged engine and a manual transmission. The collision occurred around 5.20 pm on a weekday in November 2010 on a straight road with one marked lane in each direction separated by single white broken lines. There is a primary…

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 Grabovica

Details

AGLC: R v Grabovica [2012] QCA 180
Case: [2012] QCA 180
Decision Date: 29 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grabovica was an appeal against sentence in the context of a criminal conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The applicant, a 17-year-old, pleaded guilty to the offence after a collision in which four individuals sustained grievous bodily harm, with two of them suffering extremely severe injuries. The incident occurred while the applicant was evading police, driving at excessive speeds—between 104 and 118 kilometres per hour—near a school, a location where other lawful traffic could reasonably be expected. The applicant claimed to have "blacked out" and had little recollection of the events leading up to the collision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The court examined the relevant principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court acknowledged the severity of the injuries caused and the dangerous nature of the applicant's driving, which involved speeding and evading police. The applicant's prior traffic history and the suspension of his licence at the time of the offence were also taken into account. Despite the applicant's plea of having blacked out and the mitigating factor of his age, the court found that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, given the appropriate sentencing range identified by the primary judge.

The appeal was thus refused, and the sentence upheld. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving dangerous driving, especially when it results in severe harm to others. The court's decision underscored the necessity of imposing sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence and the need to protect public safety.

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.

CITATION:	R v Grabovica [2012] QCA 180
PARTIES:	R v GRABOVICA, Adnan (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 285 of 2011 DC No 1144 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 June 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 April 2012
JUDGES:	Fraser and White JJA, and Ann Lyons J 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 − PARTICULAR OFFENCES − DRIVING OFFENCES − GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE − SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE − where 17 year old applicant convicted on plea of guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while excessively speeding – where two of four persons who suffered grievous bodily harm were injured extremely severely – where applicant was travelling at between 104 and 118 kilometres per hour at time of collision – where applicant was evading police and travelling near a school at a time when other lawful traffic could reasonably be expected – where applicant said he had “blacked out” and could not remember much of the incident – where applicant had traffic history and his licence had been suspended at time of offence – where appropriate sentencing range identified by the primary judge was not challenged – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995] QCA 80, cited R v Johnson [2011] QCA 78, considered R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93, cited R v Simpson [2003] QCA 100, considered R v Tabakovic [2005] QCA 90, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn SC for the applicant S P Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent