R v Lacey - [2005] QCA 431

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lacey [2005] QCA 431

PARTIES:

R
v
LACEY, Nicholas
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 292 of 2005
DC No 3156 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

23 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mackenzie 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 refused

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 – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after three months for an operational period of three years, and was disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for four years – where the sentencing Judge held the applicant must serve a short term of actual imprisonment given the driving constituted a deliberate dangerous course of action resulting in serious consequences – where the applicant pleaded guilty notwithstanding prosecution of the case took more than two years, a delay for which the applicant was not responsible – where the applicant was 24 years old, showed genuine remorse, gave active assistance to the injured complainant over a substantial period and had a good employment history – where the applicant had three prior speeding charges – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A Kimmins for the applicant
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The Law Place for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him following his plea of guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. He committed the offence on the 9th of August 2003. The learned District Court Judge sentenced him on the 8th of November 2005 to two years' imprisonment suspended after three months for an operational period of three years and disqualified him from holding a driver's licence for four years. He is presently in custody.

It was the Judge's view that the applicant's driving was particularly serious which led the Judge to require the applicant to serve a short term of actual imprisonment. The Judge took that course, notwithstanding other features going the other way, the applicant's plea of guilty more than two years taken over the prosecution of the case for which the applicant was not responsible during which the applicant was left in a state of uncertainty as to his fate, the applicant's age, 24 at the time of the offence, his genuine remorse, including his active assistance to the injured complainant over a substantial…

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 Lacey

Details

AGLC: R v Lacey [2005] QCA 431
Case: [2005] QCA 431
Decision Date: 23 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lacey, the applicant was convicted of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence, which had taken over two years to prosecute, a delay for which the applicant was not responsible. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after three months for an operational period of three years, and disqualified the applicant from holding a driver’s licence for four years. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant submitted that the sentence should be reduced due to the delay in prosecution, the applicant's genuine remorse, active assistance to the injured complainant, and their good employment history. The applicant also highlighted that they were 24 years old at the time of sentencing and had three prior speeding charges. The court was required to consider these factors and determine if the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning sentencing for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The court noted the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the personal circumstances of the applicant, including their age, remorse, and assistance to the injured complainant. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the personal circumstances of the applicant. The court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after three months for an operational period of three years, and disqualification from holding a driver’s licence for four years, was upheld.

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 Lacey [2005] QCA 431
PARTIES:	R v LACEY, Nicholas (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 292 of 2005 DC No 3156 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	23 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mackenzie 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 refused
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 – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after three months for an operational period of three years, and was disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for four years – where the sentencing Judge held the applicant must serve a short term of actual imprisonment given the driving constituted a deliberate dangerous course of action resulting in serious consequences – where the applicant pleaded guilty notwithstanding prosecution of the case took more than two years, a delay for which the applicant was not responsible – where the applicant was 24 years old, showed genuine remorse, gave active assistance to the injured complainant over a substantial period and had a good employment history – where the applicant had three prior speeding charges – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, distinguished
COUNSEL:	A Kimmins for the applicant M R Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The Law Place for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent