R v Hook

Case [2006] QCA 458 10 November 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hook [2006] QCA 458

PARTIES:

R
v
HOOK, Caroline Marie Una
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 220 of 2006
DC No 708 of 2005
DC No 292 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by alcohol, driving while under the influence, driving a vehicle when the number of people in the vehicle exceeded the allowed maximum – sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years, disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four years for the first count – sentenced to two months imprisonment for the second count – appeal against sentence – whether the three year imprisonment sentence should be suspended after six months – whether sentence is manifestly excessive

Alameddine v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 317; CA No 1490 of 2006, 10 October 2006, cited
R v Calligan [2006] QCA 243; CA No 41 of 2006, 23 June 2006, considered
R v Djakovich [1995] QCA 491; CA No 331 of 1995, 7 November 1995, cited
R v Noble & Verheyden (1994) 73 A Crim R 379, cited
R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417; CA No 241 of 2003, 22 September 2003, considered
R v Purcell; ex parte Attorney-General(Qld) [1999] QCA 316; CA No 192 of 1999, 17 August 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The relevant facts are set out in the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA which I have had the advantage of reading.

The material does not suggest that the applicant was warned by her passengers (or by anyone else) not to drive because of her level of intoxication. The fact that a driver in that situation has been so warned may be of some relevance, but the absence of such a warning cannot, in my view, be a material consideration when it comes to determining the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The objective considerations, the accident and the level of intoxication, will always be the more determinative factors when considering the appropriateness of a sentence.

Given the objective considerations here a head sentence of three years imprisonment was within the appropriate range.

Counsel for the applicant on…

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 Hook

Details

AGLC: R v Hook [2006] QCA 458
Case: [2006] QCA 458
Decision Date: 10 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hook involved the applicant who had pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by alcohol, driving while under the influence, and driving a vehicle when the number of people in the vehicle exceeded the allowed maximum. The court sentenced the applicant to three years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years, for the first count and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four years. For the second count, the applicant was sentenced to two months imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the three-year imprisonment sentence should be suspended after six months and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the three-year imprisonment sentence should be suspended after six months rather than 12 months. The applicant contended that the sentence was too harsh and disproportionate given the circumstances, and that a lesser period of suspension would be more appropriate. The court needed to assess the severity and appropriateness of the sentence in light of the statutory guidelines and the particular circumstances of the case.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences, particularly the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and the resulting grievous bodily harm. The court considered the statutory maximum penalties and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and that there were no grounds to reduce the period of suspension or to consider the sentence manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

Actions

Citations

R v Hook [2006] QCA 458

Most Recent Citation

R v VITOR [2017] SADC 85

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Yuen [2019] ACTSC 70
Citation 1

…R v Devries [2005] VSCA 95 R v Hannigan [2009] QCA 40; 193 A Crim R 399 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 R v Hook [2006] QCA 458 R v Howcher [2004] NSWCCA 179; 146 A Crim R 371 R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241 R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414 R v LT [2017] ACTSC 343 R v Males [2007] V…
R v Chmieluk; Ex parte [2018] QCA 271
Citation 2 (Para 4)

…es and the other direct sequelae of the crash, should, according to the authorities, be given little weight. The appellant refers to R v Hook .[3] [3][2006] QCA 458 at [14] and R v Hannigan (2009) 193 A Crim R 399 at [25].…
Caddies v Birchell [2018] QDC 180
Citation 3

…283 R v Fairbrother; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 105 R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51 R v George [2006] QCA 001 R v Hannigan [2009] QCA 40 R v Hook [2006] QCA 458 R v Johnson [2002] QCA 283 R v King [2006] QCA 466 R v Pierpoint [2001] QCA 493 R v RAP [2014] QCA 228 R v Roach [2009] QCA 360 R v Von Pein [2002] Q…
Crowley v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 117
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…criminal offence can also amount to extra-curial punishment for purposes of sentence. The rationale for this was explained by Jerrard JA in R v Hook [2006] QCA 458, where at [14] his Honour observed:…
R v VITOR [2017] SADC 85
Citation 5 (Para 30)

…In R v Hook (2001) SASC 339, one of the issues was whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the accused to lead evidence of a plea of guilty by a co-accused to the offence on the Information. The accused submitted that there was a change in the prosecution case, giving rise to unfairness.…
R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…red during the course of committing crimes has been accepted in this State as a mitigating feature: R v Noble & Verheyden [1996] 1 Qd R 329; R v Hook [2006] QCA 458; and see R v Fletcher (1980) 4 Crim LJ 244; Haddara (1997) 95 A Crim R 108 for similar views in other States. Extra curial punishments inflicted on a…
R v Johnson [2011] QCA 78
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…as capable of carrying. She was sentenced for the dangerous driving offence to a term of imprisonment of three years, suspended after 12 months. [6][2006] QCA 458.…
R v Towers [2009] QCA 159
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…cant. The maximum penalty applicable in each of those cases was 14 years imprisonment; in the present case, it was 10 years. [1][2005] QCA 90. [2][2006] QCA 458. [3][2009] QCA 69.…
R v Hannigan [2009] QCA 40
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…Noble and Verheyden [1996] 1 Qd R 329 at 331; Daetz & Wilson (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at [62]; Alameddine v R [2006] NSWCCA 317 at [18]-[28]; R v Hook [2006] QCA 458 at [14]; and Silvano v R (2008) 184 A Crim R 593 at [25]-[36].…
R v Saltmarsh [2007] QCA 25
Citation 10

…ured – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Hoad [2005] QCA 92; CA No 434 of 2004, 8 April 2005 distinguished R v Hook [2006] QCA 458; Appeal No 220 of 2006, 10 November 2006, distinguished R v Smith [2005] QCA 26; CA No 380 of 2004, 14 February 2005, followed COUNSEL: M J Byrne QC for the applic…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Alameddine v R [2006] NSWCCA 317
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…nt and not an excessive one. (Mr Kimmins referred the Court to the helpful discussion by Grove J of the appropriate principles in Alameddine v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 317, [4] with whom Kirby and Heslop JJ agreed). [3]CA No 331 of 1995, 7 November 1995. [4]CA No 1490 of 2006, 10 October 2006.…
R v Callaghan [2006] QCA 243
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…three year head sentence was available in this matter, it is difficult to say that the 12 month minimum term was manifestly too long. In R v Calligan [2006] QCA 243, [7] where that offender faced a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment compared to the 14 years Ms Hook faced, this Court imposed on appeal a sent…
R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…Another case in which the same sentence, of three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months was imposed, was R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417.[1] That offender pleaded guilty by an ex-officio indictment to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm with the circumstance of aggrava…
R v Purcell; ex parte [1999] QCA 316
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…Likewise in R v Purcell; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1999] QCA 316,[2] that respondent pleaded to a count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm with the circumstance of aggravation of being adversely affected by alcohol, with a concentration of 0.174 per cent. He was aged 24 with n…
R v Djakovich [1995] QCA 491
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…njuries Ms Hook herself had suffered in the accident. He referred the Court to R v Noble & Verheyden (1994) 73 A Crim R 379 at 382, and R v Djakovich [1995] QCA 491 [3] at pages 5 to 6, in support of the submission that injuries suffered by an offender as a result of committing the offence are relevant matters fo…

Legislation Cited

No legislation cited in this judgment.

CITATION:	R v Hook [2006] QCA 458
PARTIES:	R v HOOK, Caroline Marie Una (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 220 of 2006 DC No 708 of 2005 DC No 292 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	10 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Philip McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by alcohol, driving while under the influence, driving a vehicle when the number of people in the vehicle exceeded the allowed maximum – sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years, disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four years for the first count – sentenced to two months imprisonment for the second count – appeal against sentence – whether the three year imprisonment sentence should be suspended after six months – whether sentence is manifestly excessive Alameddine v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 317; CA No 1490 of 2006, 10 October 2006, cited R v Calligan [2006] QCA 243; CA No 41 of 2006, 23 June 2006, considered R v Djakovich [1995] QCA 491; CA No 331 of 1995, 7 November 1995, cited R v Noble & Verheyden (1994) 73 A Crim R 379, cited R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417; CA No 241 of 2003, 22 September 2003, considered R v Purcell; ex parte Attorney-General(Qld) [1999] QCA 316; CA No 192 of 1999, 17 August 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent