R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld)

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 154

PARTIES:

R
v
GRUENERT, Juergen Theodor
(respondent)

EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 439 of 2004
DC No 104 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

13 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Sentence appeal by the Attorney-General dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OTHER OFFENCES - where respondent  aborted overtaking manoeuvre in face of oncoming traffic - where movement back to correct side of the road resulted in the crashing of another vehicle - where respondent was convicted after trial of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death - where sentencing judge characterized conduct of respondent as "momentary inattention" - where sentence of 18 months imprisonment wholly suspended and suspension of licence for six months imposed - whether conduct of respondent properly characterized as "momentary inattention" - whether sentence manifestly inadequate

R v Harris;  ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 392; CA No 161 of 1999, 21 September 1999, cited
R v Balfe [1998] QCA 014; CA No 444 of 1997, 20 February 1998, cited
R v Manners;  ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 301; (2002) 132 A Crim R 363, cited

R v Anderson;  ex parte A-G (Qld) [1998] QCA 355; (1998) 104 A Crim R 489, cited

COUNSEL:

D L Meredith for appellant
A J Glynn SC for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant
Bill Cooper & Associates (Clermont) for respondent

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA in this matter.  There is nothing I wish to add thereto.  I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed.

  1. KEANE JA:  The respondent to this appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland was convicted on 26 November 2004 after a trial of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.  The offence in question occurred on 19 September 2002.

Background

  1. Shortly after 4.00 pm in the afternoon the respondent was driving a truck on the Peak Downs Highway heading towards Mackay.  The learned sentencing judge observed that the photographic exhibits showed that the respondent had a clear view for a length of the highway which allowed him to overtake safely.  The speed limit on this area of the highway was 100 kph.  The respondent overtook a white utility towing a caravan travelling in the same direction.  The utility was being driven by Johannes Krop.  Mrs Elizabeth Ann Krop was in the passenger seat.  According to Mrs Krop, they were travelling at between…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) 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
[2005] QCA 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) involved the Attorney-General of Queensland challenging the sentence imposed on Gruenert, who had been convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. The incident occurred when Gruenert aborted an overtaking manoeuvre in front of oncoming traffic, causing another vehicle to crash. Gruenert was convicted after a trial and received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, which was wholly suspended, along with a six-month suspension of his licence. The Attorney-General argued that Gruenert's conduct should not have been characterised as "momentary inattention" and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the sentencing judge correctly characterised Gruenert's conduct as "momentary inattention" and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the impact of Gruenert's actions on the deceased and their family, as well as the deterrent effect of the sentence. The court examined previous cases where the Attorney-General had appealed sentences, such as R v Harris; ex parte A-G, R v Balfe, R v Manners; ex parte A-G (Qld), and R v Anderson; ex parte A-G (Qld), to assess whether the sentence in this case was proportionate and appropriate.

The court found that the sentencing judge's characterisation of Gruenert's conduct as "momentary inattention" was not unreasonable, given the evidence and circumstances of the case. The court also determined that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, and the six-month licence suspension, was not manifestly inadequate. The court considered the impact of the sentence on Gruenert and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence appeal by the Attorney-General 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.