R v Ibrahim - [2003] QCA 386

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Ibrahim [2003] QCA 386
PARTIES: R
v
IBRAHIM, Jalil
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 162 of 2003
DC No 14 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court (Southport)
DELIVERED EX 3 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 September 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ
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 refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –
DRIVING OFFENCES – where applicant driving a motor
vehicle with a BAC of .25 – where speed exceeded 100 km/hr
– where motor vehicle accident occurred and another person
suffered personal injuries – where applicant had four previous
convictions for drink driving and one for failure to supply a
specimen of breath

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – where plea of guilty entered – whether section 13 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) requires a sentencing Judge to state in open court that he/she has taken the guilty plea into account in

imposing sentence – whether section 13 of the Penalties and in open court the fact of and reasons therefore if sentence is not reduced
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13
R v Breckenridge [2001] QCA 448; CA No 194 of 2001, 16
October 2001, considered
R v Lennon [1999] QCA 192; CA No 26 of 1999, 26 May
1999, considered
R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 385, discussed
COUNSEL: A J Kimmins for the Applicant
D A Holliday for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: Price Roobottom for the Applicant
Department of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
Respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Dutney will deliver his reasons first.

DUTNEY J: On the 21st of September 2001 the applicant was
apprehended driving a motor vehicle on the Pacific Motorway at
Mudgeeraba with a blood alcohol content of .25.

Whilst travelling at a speed in excess of the 100 kilometre per hour speed limit he collided with the rear of another vehicle causing injuries to that driver's back, head, pelvis and leg. The applicant was unlicensed at the time of the incident.

The applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, that he was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and disqualified absolutely from holding or obtaining a drivers licence.

The applicant had no prior criminal history but had four previous convictions for drink driving offences and one previous conviction for failing to supply a breath specimen. Those offences were committed in 1988, two in 1991, 1999 and 2000. The applicant was unlicensed because he had not reapplied for a licence after his disqualification for the offence in 2000 had expired.

Estimates put the speed of the applicant's vehicle immediately prior to the accident at up to 200 kilometres an…

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 Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: R v Ibrahim [2003] QCA 386
Case: [2003] QCA 386
Decision Date: 3/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Ibrahim, the defendant, Ibrahim, was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in personal injuries to another person. The accident occurred while Ibrahim was driving under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol concentration of.25, and at a speed exceeding 100 km/hr. This matter was heard in the court, which needed to determine whether the sentence imposed upon Ibrahim was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The key legal issue before the court was the severity of the sentence and whether it was commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by Ibrahim.

The court considered the defendant's driving history, which included four previous driving-related offences, and the seriousness of the current offence, which involved driving under the influence of alcohol and excessive speeding, leading to a motor vehicle accident and personal injury to another person. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the protection of the public from the risk of harm posed by Ibrahim's conduct. The court found that the sentence imposed upon Ibrahim was appropriate and balanced the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on Ibrahim. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's driving history, and that it was commensurate with the need for general deterrence and the protection of the public. The court was satisfied that the sentence was just and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. The final order of the court was to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Ibrahim [2003] QCA 386
PARTIES:	R v IBRAHIM, Jalil (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 162 of 2003 DC No 14 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court (Southport)
DELIVERED EX	3 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Dutney and Philippides JJ 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 refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – where applicant driving a motor vehicle with a BAC of .25 – where speed exceeded 100 km/hr – where motor vehicle accident occurred and another person suffered personal injuries – where applicant had four previous convictions for drink driving and one for failure to supply a specimen of breath
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – where plea of guilty entered – whether section 13 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) requires a sentencing Judge to state in open court that he/she has taken the guilty plea into account in
imposing sentence – whether section 13 of the Penalties and in open court the fact of and reasons therefore if sentence is not reduced
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13 R v Breckenridge [2001] QCA 448; CA No 194 of 2001, 16 October 2001, considered R v Lennon [1999] QCA 192; CA No 26 of 1999, 26 May 1999, considered R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 385, discussed
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the Applicant D A Holliday for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Price Roobottom for the Applicant Department of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Respondent