R v Gray

Case [2005] QCA 280


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gray  [2005] QCA 280

PARTIES:

R
v
GRAY, Dean Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 129 of 2005
DC No 2857 of 2004
DC No 463 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2005

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by alcohol – applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months – applicant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.125 per cent – applicant had no prior convictions and was 17 years old when the offence was committed – psychiatric report tendered describing applicant’s remorse as ‘manifest and profound’ – whether in all the circumstances the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Antoney [2000] QCA 180; CA No 402 of 1999, 16 May 2000, considered
R v Cusak; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2000] QCA 239; CA No 90 of 2000, 16 June 2000, considered

R v Hine [2002] QCA 212; CA No 31 of 2002, 21 June 2002, considered
R v Hoad [2005] QCA 92; CA No 434 of 2004, 8 April 2005, distinguished
R v Russell [2002] QCA 285; CA No 91 of 2002, 6 August 2002, distinguished
R v Stephenson [1999] QCA 519; CA No 295 of 1999, 17 December 1999, considered
R v Tabakovic [2005] QCA 90; CA No 3 of 2005, 8 April 2005, considered
R v Thumm; ex parte A-G (Qld)l [1999] QCA 355; CA No 186 of 1999, 27 August 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter SC with S Ryan for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. McPHERSON JA:  I agree with the reasons of Williams JA. The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  On 28 April 2005 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge that on 31 August 2003 he caused the death Erica Leigh Kovacs and grievous bodily harm to Sophie Therese Fripp by the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst adversely affected by alcohol.  He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years but it was ordered that such sentence be suspended after 18 months with an operational period of four years.  He was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of three years.  He seeks leave…

Continue reading R v Gray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gray [2005] QCA 280
Case
[2005] QCA 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by alcohol. The applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, with a condition that the applicant not drive for a period of two years. The applicant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the offence was 0.125 per cent, and the applicant had no prior convictions. The applicant was 17 years old at the time of the offence. The applicant subsequently applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. A psychiatric report was tendered which described the applicant's remorse as 'manifest and profound'. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
The court considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicant's blood alcohol concentration was high, and that the applicant had no prior convictions. However, the court also noted that the applicant was remorseful, and that the psychiatric report described the applicant's remorse as'manifest and profound'. The court considered that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court noted that the sentence imposed was a suspended sentence, and that the applicant would not serve any time in prison unless they breached the conditions of the suspended sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.