R v Grannigan - [2004] QDC 268

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	The Queen –v- GRANNIGAN [2004] QDC 268
PARTIES:	The Queen
v
Aaron William GRANNIGAN
FILE NO:	208 / 2004
PROCEEDINGS:	Sentence
DELIVERED ON:	12 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING	3, 4, 11 & 12 August 2004
DATES:
JUDGE:	CF Wall QC
ORDER:	Permanent stay of proceedings on the summary charge.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE - DRIVING OFFENCES – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – acc convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated – sentence - further summary charge of driving under the influence of alcohol – same act of driving - plea of autrefois convict under s.17 and double punishment under s.16 Criminal Code – application of s.16 – permanent stay of proceedings ordered on summary charge.
Cases referred to: R v Gordon, ex parte Attorney – General (1975) Qd R 301 (CON) R v Tricklebank (1994) 1 Qd R 330 (CON) Connolly v Meagher (1906) St.R.Qd 125 (CON) Gaiari-Ganereba v Giddings (1967-68) P.N.G.L.R 346 (CON) Tapopwa Thomas v The State (1979) P.N.G.L.R 140 (CON)
Legislation referred to: Criminal Code s. 7, 16, 17, 328A(2)(b) & 328A(3)(b), 652 Acts Interpretation Act s. 45(1) Penalties and Sentences Act s.4, 12(3) & s.12(4) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act s.79
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Hibble for the Crown Mr H. Walters for the Accused
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for the Accused
12082004 D.3 T7-10/DGJ M/T TSVDC1-2/2004 (Wall DCJ)	REVISED COPIES ISSUED

State Reporting Bureau Date: 16 August, 2004

1

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE C.F. WALL QC

Indictment No 208 of 2004

THE QUEEN

AARON WILLIAM GRANNIGAN

TOWNSVILLE

..DATE 12/08/2004

EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS 12082004 D.3 T7-10/DGJ M/T TSVDC1-2/2004 (Wall DCJ)	30
EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS	1
HIS HONOUR: On the 4th of August 2004, Aaron William Grannigan was convicted by a jury
of the following two offences:

(1) that on the 8th day of August 2003 at Townsville in the State of Queensland he 10
unlawfully used a motor vehicle without the consent of Geoffrey Warren Nemeth, the
person in lawful possession of it;
(2) that on the 8th day of August 2003 at Townsville he dangerously operated a
vehicle on Woolcock Street, Kings Road and Albany Street, and at the time of
committing the offence he was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance.

At the trial, evidence was led of a police chase along Woolcock Street, Barryman Street,

Kings Road and Albany Street in the Townsville suburbs of Hyde Park and Pimlico. The	20
vehicle being chased by police was that being driven by the accused Grannigan. It came to
a stop in Albany Street and police observed Grannigan alight from the driver's seat of the
vehicle.
Sentencing was adjourned to the 11th of August to allow two related summary offences to be
30
transmitted to the District Court from the Magistrates Court pursuant to section 652 of the
Criminal Code. Those two offences are the following:

(1) that on the…

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 Grannigan

Details

AGLC: R v Grannigan [2004] QDC 268
Case: [2004] QDC 268
Decision Date: 12/08/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and subsequently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol based on the same act of driving. The matter came before the court to determine whether the appellant could be tried on the summary charge under the doctrine of autrefois convict and whether it would constitute double punishment under the Criminal Code. The appellant argued that the summary charge amounted to double punishment and that the doctrine of autrefois convict applied, preventing a retrial on the same charge. The court had to decide whether the summary charge was a separate offence from the original charge and whether it would constitute double punishment.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, particularly sections 16 and 17, which deal with double punishment and autrefois convict, respectively. The court found that the summary charge was based on the same act of driving that formed the basis of the original charge and that the elements of the two offences were not sufficiently distinct to warrant separate prosecutions. The court held that the summary charge amounted to double punishment and that the doctrine of autrefois convict applied, ordering a permanent stay of proceedings on the summary charge.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of double punishment and autrefois convict, which seek to prevent a person from being punished twice for the same offence. The court found that the summary charge was not a separate offence from the original charge, as it was based on the same act of driving and shared many of the same elements. The court also noted that the summary charge was a lesser included offence of the original charge, further supporting the application of the doctrine of autrefois convict. The court concluded that the summary charge amounted to double punishment and ordered a permanent stay of proceedings on the summary charge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Permanent stay of proceedings on the summary charge.

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.

(1) that on the 8th day of August 2003 at Townsville in the State of Queensland he	10
unlawfully used a motor vehicle without the consent of Geoffrey Warren Nemeth, the person in lawful possession of it;
(2) that on the 8th day of August 2003 at Townsville he dangerously operated a vehicle on Woolcock Street, Kings Road and Albany Street, and at the time of committing the offence he was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance.