R v Lasrado - [2009] QCA 69

[2009] QCA 69

COURT OF APPEAL

CHESTERMAN JA
MULLINS J
DOUGLAS J

CA No 26 of 2009

THE QUEEN

GREGORY SHIRAZ LASRADO (Applicant)

BRISBANE

DATE 24/03/2009

JUDGMENT

APPLICANT conducted his own case

MR D R KINSELLA (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions) for the respondent

DOUGLAS J: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence. The applicant was convicted on 12 December 2008 of the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by a prescription drug.

The explanation recently provided for the delay of approximately one month in seeking to challenge the sentence imposed, is that the applicant was disoriented by being gaoled shortly before Christmas and did not have access to legal advice but tried to file an application unsuccessfully that if it had been filed would have been in time.

The sentence imposed on him was two years imprisonment with a parole release date after serving eight months, namely 11 August 2009. The applicant was also disqualified from holding a licence for four years, a result which he also seeks to challenge. The primary focus of his oral submissions was the period of his suspension.
The applicant was 34 when sentenced and had a significant traffic history before and after the offence the subject of the charge. He had eight speeding convictions before the offence and five speeding convictions after it with numerous suspensions of his licence.

The incident which led to the charge against him occurred on the South-East Freeway near the commencement of a T2 transit Lane at Mount Gravatt. He had been driving a powerful lowset sports car in the same direction as the complainant's vehicle since a set of traffic lights at the end of Coronation Drive.

He had been observed by a number of people to be driving in an erratic manner both in speed and with his manoeuvres on the Freeway in a southbound direction from the City. At one stage he was observed to be talking on a mobile phone.

His behaviour caused other drivers to take evasive action and one witness contacted police to advise them of his driving. A witness observed him on a number of occasions to travel closely to the vehicle in front of him, slow down and then change lanes. Moments before the collision the applicant was seen to accelerate towards the vehicle in front of him, veer across to the right to a position behind the complainant's vehicle which was then in the far right-hand lane. The applicant continued to veer to the right into an emergency lane, appearing to commence an overtaking manoeuvre and then collided with the rear of the complainant's vehicle, causing it to become airborne, flip and then slide across the other lanes of the freeway. Apparently the applicant attempted to brake just before the collision. An estimate of a witness was that the applicant's vehicle was travelling in excess of 100 kilometres per hour at the…

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 Lasrado

Details

AGLC: R v Lasrado [2009] QCA 69
Case: [2009] QCA 69
Decision Date: 24 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lasrado, the applicant, Gregory Shiraz Lasrado, sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by a prescription drug. The applicant was convicted on 12 December 2008 and sentenced to two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight months, along with a four-year disqualification from holding a driver's licence. The applicant claimed that the delay in seeking an extension was due to his disorientation after being imprisoned, which prevented him from obtaining legal advice and filing the application on time. The primary focus of his appeal was the length of his licence disqualification.

The court had to decide whether to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against his sentence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Both counsel agreed that an appropriate head sentence would be between two and two and a half years imprisonment with a parole release date set after serving eight to ten months. The court considered the applicant's extensive traffic history, both before and after the offence, as well as the severity of the driving that led to the incident and the injuries sustained by the complainant. The court also took into account the applicant's remorse, collapsing marriage and business, and the fact that the sentence fell within the appropriate range.

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects of a successful appeal against the sentence, as it fell within the appropriate range and took into account the relevant factors. The court also found that the applicant had not shown that it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time for him to appeal. As a result, the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The order of the Court was that the application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders