R v Kohler

Case [2010] QDC 502


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kohler [2010] QDC 502

PARTIES:

R

v

Ronald Phillip Kohler

FILE NO/S:

706/08

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

22/07/2010

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

22/07/2010

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The defendant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to be wholly suspended with an operational period of 3 years. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of 2 years.  

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW  –  SENTENCE –  dangerous driving causing death –where more than momentary inattention – where there was short period of inattention – where driving less than applicable speed limit.

LEGISLATION:

CASES: 

R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 154
R v Manahan [2000] QCA 382
R v Manners; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 301
R v Proesser [2007] QCA 061
R v Roser [2004] QCA 318
Vance; ex parte A-G [2007] QCA 269.

COUNSEL:

B. Power for the Director of Public Prosecutions

C. Wilson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Buckland Criminal Law for the defendant

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Kohler, you were found guilty last night, after a three-day trial, of a single count of dangerous driving causing death. 

The circumstances of the offence we listened to through various witnesses over a period of three days.  The jury, by their verdict, accepted that, as you came over that slight rise on Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road and were confronted with a line of queuing traffic, you must have been inattentive for a period, which effectively meant that, when you did put on the brakes and they locked up, it was too late to avoid the catastrophic outcome which did in fact occur.

The evidence of Mr Cooper was that he moved his car out of the way beside the line of traffic.  Mr Harmer gave evidence that his vehicle was missed by four inches or 100 mm and, as we know, your vehicle slowed down at the point immediately behind Mr Harmer's car, collided with Mr McKendrick, who was riding a motorcycle, and I have to say, if it were within my power, I think I'd ban motorcycles, but that is something that is also beyond my power, but he was riding a motorcycle.  The evidence is that he was riding it entirely safely.  He, of course, was wearing a helmet and he was literally, at that very point in time, left with nowhere to go.  There were no skid marks.  There is nothing to indicate that he had any opportunity to recover from the catastrophe that confronted him.

I accept that you showed immediate remorse at the roadside.  That indicates to me very clearly, as does something else quite extraordinary, that you have the deepest possible appreciation of the dreadful consequences of your short period of inattention.  You have not driven a heavy vehicle, I'm told, since the collision, nor is there any prospect that you will in the future.

When I say that your remorse…

Continue reading R v Kohler

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Kohler [2010] QDC 502
Case
[2010] QDC 502
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kohler, the defendant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The defendant's vehicle collided with a motorcycle resulting in the motorcyclist's death. The incident occurred when the defendant was momentarily distracted. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, given the circumstances of the offence. The court had to consider the degree of dangerousness of the driving, the degree of inattention, and the applicable speed limit at the time of the incident.

The court acknowledged that the defendant's inattention was momentary and that the vehicle was being driven at a speed within the limit. The court considered these factors in determining a sentence that would appropriately balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court held that the defendant's momentary inattention and the fact that the vehicle was being driven at a lawful speed warranted a sentence that would not unduly punish the defendant. The court sentenced the defendant to 2 years imprisonment, wholly suspended with an operational period of 3 years. The defendant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of 2 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to be wholly suspended with an operational period of 3 years. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of 2 years.

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.