R v Hoad

Case [2005] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hoad [2005] QCA 92

PARTIES:

R
v
HOAD, Rebecca Kim
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 434 of 2004
DC No 517 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

8 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Grant leave to appeal against sentence
2.    Allow the appeal by varying the five year sentence       suspended after 18 months so that it be suspended       after the applicant has served nine months of it

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 – applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – applicant fell asleep at the wheel after four days without sleep due to drug use – applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after 18 months – whether the head sentence was too severe when assessed against comparable cases – whether applicant’s mitigating personal factors required a further amelioration of the required period in custody

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A

R v Antoney [2000] QCA 180; CA No 402 of 1999, 16 May 2000, considered
R v Breckenridge [2001] QCA 448; CA No 194 of 2001, 16 October 2001, distinguished
R v Cusak; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2000] QCA 239; CA No 90 of 2000, 16 June 2000, considered
R v Merrill; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 263; CA No 86 of 2002, 25 July 2002, considered
R v Morgan, unreported, Judge Newton, District Court of Queensland at Southport, 26 April 2002, distinguished
R v Rahn [1998] QCA 338; CA No 180 of 1998, 6 August 1998, distinguished
R v Stephenson [1999] QCA 519; CA No 295 of 1999, 17 December 1999, considered
R v Thumm [1999] QCA 355; CA No 186 of 1999, 27 August 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

A Boe (sol) for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  I agree with the reasons of Jerrard JA and with the order he proposes.

  1. JERRARD JA:  On 17 December 2004 Rebecca Hoad pleaded guilty to having dangerously operated a motor vehicle on 11 August 2003 in Frank Street, Labrador, thereby causing the death of Isabel Vickary, at a time when Rebecca Hoad was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance.  She was sentenced to five years imprisonment to be suspended after she had served 18 months, for an operative period of five years; and she was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years.  Ms Hoad has applied for leave to appeal against…

Continue reading R v Hoad

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hoad [2005] QCA 92
Case
[2005] QCA 92
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in the case of R v Hoad was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. The applicant had fallen asleep at the wheel after four days without sleep due to drug use, leading to a fatal accident. The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentence, contending that it was excessive when compared to similar cases and did not sufficiently account for the mitigating personal factors of the case.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the head sentence was too severe when assessed against comparable cases and whether the applicant's personal mitigating factors warranted a further reduction in the custodial period of the sentence. The applicant argued that the head sentence should be reduced, and the period of suspension should be increased, given the unique circumstances of the case. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the original sentence was appropriate and should be upheld.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence was indeed too severe, taking into account the mitigating factors present in the case. The Court recognised that the applicant's drug-induced sleep deprivation was a significant mitigating factor that was not adequately reflected in the original sentence. The Court also found that the head sentence was excessive when compared to similar cases. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal by varying the sentence so that it be suspended after the applicant had served nine months of the five-year sentence.

The Court's orders were to grant leave to appeal against the sentence and to allow the appeal by varying the five-year sentence suspended after 18 months so that it be suspended after the applicant had served nine months of it. The Court's decision in R v Hoad demonstrates the importance of considering all relevant mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly in cases involving drug-induced sleep deprivation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence

2. Allow the appeal by varying the five year sentence suspended after 18 months so that it be suspended after the applicant has served nine months of it

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.