R v Harch

[2003] QCA 315

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Harch [2003] QCA 315
PARTIES:	R v HARCH, Clinton Jeffrey (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 237 of 2003 DC No 10 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Warwick
DELIVERED EX	24 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2003
JUDGE:	de Jersey CJ, Mackenzie and Helman JJ 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of dangerous driving with circumstance of aggravation – where sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after 4 months for 2 years – where also disqualified from driving for 2 years – where applicant claimed sentence was manifestly excessive – whether excessive having regard to comparable cases
COUNSEL:	M Johnson for the applicant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gudkovs Power Osborne for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MACKENZIE J: The reasons in The Queen v. Harch are as follows. The applicant, who was 20 years of age when the offence was committed, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving with a circumstance of aggravation that he was adversely affected by alcohol. His blood alcohol concentration was 0.191 per cent. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment suspended after four months for two years and disqualified from driving for two years.

Despite his youth, his criminal history shows repetitive commission of offences of dishonesty. He has been in breach of community-based orders. The Community Corrections Officer, while not being generally adversely disposed towards the applicant, questioned whether there was any benefit to the applicant and the community if he were to remain under supervision.

There are also some signs of irresponsibility as a driver in past events. He had one previous conviction for driving under the influence of liquor at .056 per cent; one instance of speeding by more than 30 kilometres over the limit; and his licence was suspended at the end of November 2002 for three months for accumulation of points. He also drove on a number of occasions as a learner without a licensed driver being in the vehicle.

Police on patrol in Warwick on a wet evening observed the vehicle which belonged to a friend of the applicant with its engine revving loudly travelling at 80 to 90 kilometres in the city. The police followed it. The officers saw it go through a roundabout at speed without braking at an intersection where there was a hotel. The vehicle fishtailed at this time. It then entered a railway underpass where it was not easy for the police to see what was happening.

However, when they arrived at the underpass, they saw the vehicle in a…