R v Hitchens - [1998] QCA 314

COURT OF APPEAL

[1998] QCA 314

McPHERSON JA
AMBROSE J
BYRNE J

Appeal No 226 of 1998

THE QUEEN

JACK RENNIE HITCHENS
(Applicant) Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/08/98

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant, who has applied for leave to appeal in this matter, was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months suspended after three months, with an operational period of two years. He was also disqualified from holding a driver's licence for two years.

The offence in respect of which this penalty was imposed was that of dangerous driving. The story is that the applicant, who is a young man of low intelligence, was on 4 January 1998 at a service station with his brother in a car he had purchased for $400. The applicant's brother knew someone who worked at the service station.

The applicant himself had a driver's licence, which in all the circumstances does appear somewhat surprising, but the car was unregistered. Whilst he was at the service station he started to show off by doing "burnouts". The police noticed him and a chase ensued. The time then was 3.52 p.m. and the service station was at Eagleby. The chase went on for nearly 50 kilometres and lasted 25 minutes.

In the course of the chase the applicant drove at speeds of up to 130 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, 160 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, and 190 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The applicant went on to a roundabout, causing two vehicles to take evasive action. Traffic at the time was ranging between heavy and light and the applicant was changing lanes without proper indication and was weaving in and out of traffic. While on Logan Road, the vehicle travelled through red lights on three occasions. On the Pacific Highway he saw a police vehicle and swerved towards it and the passenger made a signal.

Police lost contact with the vehicle for a short time. He was then seen in the Tarragindi/Holland Park Road area. The passenger had left the vehicle and a police motorcyclist, who was searching for it, had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

The applicant collided with a stationary vehicle at a red light causing over $1,500 worth of damage. He sped up Logan Road going against red lights. At Princess Alexandra Hospital he slowed at a red light and collided with another car, causing damage of $5,704.

The police motorcyclist who was chasing him attempted to take an exit from Ipswich Road to Gurnard Road, but lost control and suffered injuries, namely a broken left elbow, severe grazing to arms, fingertips of the left hand and palm and knuckles, right knee, upper back and bruising to lower back. The applicant, when apprehended, refused to talk to police.

The maximum penalty for this offence is three years and a $15,000 fine. The sentence imposed which, as I said, was imprisonment for 12 months suspended after 3 with an operational period of two years, cannot, in my view, 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.

Continue reading R v Hitchens

Details

AGLC: R v Hitchens [1998] QCA 314
Case: [1998] QCA 314
Decision Date: 27 August 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hitchens, the applicant, Jack Rennie Hitchens, was appealing against the sentence imposed for dangerous driving. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months, suspended after three months, with an operational period of two years, and was disqualified from holding a driver's licence for two years. The applicant had engaged in a dangerous chase with the police, driving at excessive speeds and causing damage to other vehicles. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge failed to adequately consider the applicant's intellectual disability in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence. The Court acknowledged that the applicant had a low intelligence level, assessed at about 75 IQ, and that he might be at a disadvantage in prison due to his intellectual impairment. However, the Court also emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases of dangerous driving and the need to enforce the law to protect other road users. The Court was of the view that the sentence, effectively amounting to three months of imprisonment, was not so severe that it could be set aside, even in the case of a person with intellectual disabilities. The Court refused the application for leave to appeal, dismissing the argument that a probation order and community service order would have been a more appropriate sentence.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was that the application for leave to appeal was refused. The Court upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial judge and found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Orders