SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Hart [2008] QCA 199 PARTIES: R
v
HART, Llewellyn Frederick
(applicant)FILE NO/S: CA No 158 of 2008
DC No 92 of 2006DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Townsville DELIVERED ON: 25 July 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 18 July 2008 JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Keane and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order madeORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after four months for an operational period of 18 months – whether a short custodial sentence was within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion reposed in the learned sentencing judge Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 328A R v Balfe [1998] QCA 14, cited
R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197, cited
R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117, applied
R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 154, considered
R v Harris; ex part A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 392, applied
R v Manners, ex parte A-G (Qld) (2002) 132 A Crim R 363;
[2002] QCA 301, cited
R v Price [2005] QCA 52, cited
R v Proesser [2007] QCA 61, distinguished
R v Vance; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 269, consideredCOUNSEL: A W Collins for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondentSOLICITORS: Giudes & Elliott for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.
KEANE JA: On 6 June 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after four months for an operational period of 18 months. He was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 12 months.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.
The circumstances of the offence
On 25 January 2005, at about 10.00 pm, the applicant was driving a taxi outbound from Townsville approaching the intersection of the Bruce Highway and Mount Low Parkway. Garnet William Wieden ("the deceased") was seated in the front passenger seat of the taxi. The applicant was following another vehicle which executed a right-hand turn into Mount Low Parkway. The applicant then executed his own right-hand turn. Police Constable Philip Haupt was riding his motorcycle in a…
Continue reading R v Hart
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hart [2008] QCA 199
- Case
- [2008] QCA 199
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at hand were whether the sentence imposed by the court was manifestly excessive and whether the applicant's fault was so serious as to require some period of actual custody. The court held that the imposition of a custodial sentence was within the sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. This was based on the Court's decisions in R v Gruenert and R v Vance; ex parte A-G (Qld), which established that the death of a human being as a result of dangerous driving is so serious that a term of imprisonment of at least 18 months should be expected save in exceptional cases. The court found that the applicant's dangerous operation of his motor vehicle also caused serious injury to Constable Haupt, which further supported the need for some period of actual custody.
The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused. Fraser JA agreed with the reasons of Keane JA and the order proposed by his Honour. The final order was that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.