R v Hine - [2002] QCA 212

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hine [2002] QCA 212

PARTIES:

R
v
HINE, Paul Thomas
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 31 of 2002
DC No 2140 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Mackenzie and Atkinson JJ

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McPherson JA and Mackenzie J concurring as to the orders made, Atkinson J dissenting

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – where appellant convicted of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive

Penalties & Sentences Act, s 9(2)(c), s 9(2)(e)

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, applied
R v Byrne, CA No 3 of 1995, considered
R v Cusack; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 239,CA No 90 of 2000, 16 June 2000, considered
R v de Rooy, CA No 105 of 1991, 1 August 1991, considered
R v McCormick [2000] QCA 522, considered
R v Melano; ex parte Attorney-General (1995) 2 Qd R 186, considered
R v Purcell; ex parte Attorney-General, CA No 192 of 1999, considered
R v Rowley, CA No 240 of 1998, 26 August 1998, considered
R v Visconte [1982] 2 NSWLR 104, applied

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter for the applicant

S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Deardens Lawyers for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: This is a difficult case to resolve, as is demonstrated by the division of opinion among the members of the Court. The sentence imposed was imprisonment for four years with a recommendation for release after 18 months for a single count, to which the applicant pleaded guilty, of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected (.139%) by an intoxicating substance.

In arriving at the sentence he did, the learned District Court judge must, I consider, have attached considerable significance to the severity of the impact and the seriousness of the lasting physical and personal effects on the complainant driver of the vehicle with which the applicant’s vehicle collided. It was stationary at traffic lights, when the front right hand corner of the applicant’s vehicle struck the rear left corner of the complainant’s vehicle. The force of the impact was such as to propel her vehicle into a telephone pole some 70 metres distant from its original stationary position. It was presumably this collision that inflicted the brain injuries from which the complainant continues to suffer. In addition, the applicant’s vehicle spun into another vehicle in the same or an adjoining lane.

As a result of the accident, the complainant sustained injury to the left…

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.

Continue reading R v Hine

Details

AGLC: R v Hine [2002] QCA 212
Case: [2002] QCA 212
Decision Date: 21 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hine involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant for an offence of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, which included an aggravating circumstance. The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the severity of the sentence, the appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence did not take into account mitigating factors and was disproportionate in comparison to similar cases. The court was required to examine the sentence imposed, the principles of sentencing, and whether there was any error in the application of the law by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence. The court considered the severity of the offence, the aggravating circumstances, and the need to deter and protect the community. The judges held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v Hine [2002] QCA 212
PARTIES:	R v HINE, Paul Thomas (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 31 of 2002 DC No 2140 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 May 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Mackenzie and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McPherson JA and Mackenzie J concurring as to the orders made, Atkinson J dissenting
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – where appellant convicted of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive Penalties & Sentences Act, s 9(2)(c), s 9(2)(e) Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, applied R v Byrne, CA No 3 of 1995, considered R v Cusack; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 239,CA No 90 of 2000, 16 June 2000, considered R v de Rooy, CA No 105 of 1991, 1 August 1991, considered R v McCormick [2000] QCA 522, considered R v Melano; ex parte Attorney-General (1995) 2 Qd R 186, considered R v Purcell; ex parte Attorney-General, CA No 192 of 1999, considered R v Rowley, CA No 240 of 1998, 26 August 1998, considered R v Visconte [1982] 2 NSWLR 104, applied
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the applicant S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Deardens Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent