R v Harris; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [1999] QCA 392

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 392
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No 161 of 1999

Brisbane
[R v. Harris; ex parte A-G]

THE QUEEN

STEVEN ANDREW HARRIS

Respondent

EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

de Jersey CJ
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 21 September 1999
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; de Jersey CJ dissenting
APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING

OFFENCES - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCING - dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another - whether sentence of intensive correction manifestly inadequate
Anderson; Ex parte A-G (Qld) (CA No 284 of 1998, 10
November 1998); [1998] QCA 355
Everett (1994) 181 CLR 295
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT - AVERMENTS
- UNCERTAINTY, DUPLICITY AND AMBIGUITY - single act of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another - whether only one offence committed - whether duplicity point open - history and application of s 328A Criminal Code
Benfield [1760] 2 Burr 980
Chew (1991) 4 WAR 21
Clendon [1730] 92 ER 516
F (1996) 90 A Crim R 356
Giddins [1842] Car & M 634
Jacobs [1998] 1 Qd R 96; [1997] QCA 111
Jemmison v Priddle [1972] 1 QB 489
Merriman [1973] AC 584
Montgomery v Stewart (1967) 116 CLR 220
Shillingford (1968) 1 WLR 566
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77
Criminal Code, s 328A
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PLEAS - SPECIAL PLEAS - PLEA OF AUTREFOIS ACQUIT OR
AUTREFOIS CONVICT - WHETHER SUFFICIENT BAR - TEST - dangerous driving of vehicle causing death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another - test for application of s 16 Criminal Code - whether more than one punishable act or omission
Gordon [1975] Qd R 301
Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330
Criminal Code, s 16

Counsel: Mr M Byrne QC for the appellant
Mr B Devereaux for the respondent
Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Hearing Date: 19 July 1999

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Pincus JA. I agree with His Honour’s conclusion that the indictment was correctly drawn, for the reasons he expresses.
The penalty imposed was 12 months imprisonment, to be served, not actually, but in the community by way of intensive correction order. The learned sentencing judge also ordered that the respondent be disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period of two years.
The learned judge described the conditions of the intensive correction order as “arduous”. The conditions were those set out in s 114 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, obliging the respondent to report to and receive visits from an authorised Corrective Services Commission officer at least twice weekly, and to take part in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Harris; 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: [1999] QCA 392
Decision Date: 21/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Harris, was charged with a series of driving offences in Queensland, including driving under the influence and reckless driving. The Attorney-General of Queensland sought a ruling on the constitutionality of certain provisions of the state's Road Transport Act. The matter was ultimately heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the provisions of the Road Transport Act, which authorised the seizure of a driver's licence upon conviction for specified offences, were valid under the Australian Constitution. The Attorney-General argued that the provisions exceeded the legislative powers of the Queensland Parliament, as they amounted to punishment for an offence, which is an area of law reserved to the Commonwealth under section 51(xxix) of the Constitution.

The High Court held that the provisions were valid exercises of the Queensland Parliament's legislative power. The court found that the provisions were regulatory in nature and did not constitute punishment for an offence, as they were intended to enhance road safety by promptly removing dangerous drivers from the roads. The court emphasised that the provisions were not punitive but rather aimed at preventing further harm to the public by restricting the driver's ability to operate a vehicle.

The court's decision upheld the constitutionality of the Road Transport Act provisions, allowing for the continued enforcement of the licence seizure measures. The High Court's ruling clarified the scope of state legislative powers in relation to traffic regulation and provided guidance on the distinction between regulatory measures and punitive actions.

Orders