R v Hamilton

Case [2000] QCA 286


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hamilton [2000] QCA 286

PARTIES:

R
v
HAMILTON, Michael Frederick
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 75 of 2000
DC No 47 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 July 2000

JUDGES:

Davies, McPherson and Thomas JJA
Joint reasons for judgment of Davies and Thomas JJA; separate reasons of McPherson JA, concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.    Appeal allowed.

3. Set aside sentence imposed below and impose, in lieu, a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. That order must contain the requirements referred to in s 114 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

4.    Order that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of four years.

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 GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – GENERALLY – 17 year old applicant at time of offence pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – sentenced to imprisonment for nine months suspended after one month with an operational period of 18 months – imprisoned for 11 days after the date of sentence before obtaining bail pending appeal – applicant failed to observe a red light and consequently collided with a taxi causing extensive injuries to the driver – subsequent to this offence applicant caught speeding – applicant had no prior convictions, good work history and exhibited remorse immediately – victim held no 'bias' against applicant – consideration of the competing principles in imposing short terms of imprisonment on young offenders – whether applicant's sentence should have been wholly suspended or imposed by way of intensive correction order or parole – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 114
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 114

Anderson (1998) 104 ACrimR 489, considered
Cusak [2000] QCA 239; CA No 90 of 2000, 16 June 2000, distinguished
Dooley v Simpson CA No 275 of 1987, 15 March 1988, considered
Grant CA No 143 of 1998, 15 July 1998, considered
Harris [1999] QCA 392; CA No 161 of 1999, 21 September 1999, considered
R v GB & LB [1999] QCA 46; CA No 443 and No 449 of 1998, 26 February 1999, considered
R v Carmichael CA No 160 of 1996, 19 July 1996, considered
R v Riddell (1997) 25 MVR 574, considered

COUNSEL:

P A Leask for applicant/appellant
L J Clare for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. DAVIES and THOMAS JJA:  On 24 March this year the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of dangerous operation…

Continue reading R v Hamilton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hamilton [2000] QCA 286
Case
[2000] QCA 286
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hamilton involved a 17-year-old who was convicted for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle that caused grievous bodily harm to a taxi driver. The young offender had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, suspended after one month, with an operational period of 18 months. The applicant was imprisoned for 11 days pending the appeal. The incident occurred when the applicant failed to observe a red light, resulting in a collision with the taxi, which caused significant injuries to the driver. The applicant had no prior convictions, a good work history, and showed immediate remorse. The victim did not hold any bias against the applicant.

The legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentence should have been wholly suspended or imposed by way of an intensive correction order or parole, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the competing principles in imposing short terms of imprisonment on young offenders, including rehabilitation and deterrence.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and granted the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community, with the requirements referred to in s 114 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. Additionally, the applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Set aside sentence imposed below and impose, in lieu, a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. That order must contain the requirements referred to in s 114 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

4. Order that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of four years.

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.