R v Lennon - [1999] QCA 192

[1999] QCA 192

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
DERRINGTON J
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 26 of 1999

LENNON, Geoffrey Norman Applicant

BRISBANE

26 MAY 1999

JUDGMENT

It was a condition of his driving licence that he wear spectacles, but he did not do so. He has no recollection of the drive from the hotel to the accident scene.

Miss Buckley suffered a complicated fracture to her right forearm, a comminuted fracture of her left patella and a fracture of her left ankle. She required extensive orthopaedic treatment and has been left with residual pain and disability.

She sustained serious lacerations to her forehead, a fractured left collar bone and ribs and serious crush injuries to her chest. She has scarring to her face and chest and knee and has developed painful recurring migraines.

She was a physiotherapist who had been unable to return to full-time private practice. She suffers a high level of emotional distress and anxiety. Her marriage has suffered considerable strain.

The offence was out of character for the applicant. He has no prior criminal convictions and only three traffic violations. There are two for speeding, one in 1991 and one in 1993.

In 1994 he drove when the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded .05 per cent. It was .052 per cent. For that offence he was disqualified from driving for one month and fined $100. He is 46 years of age being born on 7 September 1953. His wife had left him about a month before the offence taking their children with her. The applicant was upset by the dissolution of his marriage which was the reason for his excessive consumption of alcohol.

The learned sentencing Judge remarked that the case was one of the most serious examples of dangerous driving that he had experienced. His Honour had regard to the level of intoxication; the number of warnings given to the applicant, one that he ought not to be driving at all, and the other that he had been driving on the wrong side of the road; that the dangerous driving occurred over a distance of about eight kilometres; the applicant's failure to wear spectacles; the extent of Miss Buckley's injuries and what His Honour described as the applicant's "completely unacceptable" conduct towards the ambulance officers.

His Honour could detect nothing in the applicant's favour except his early plea of guilty, his apparent remorse and his relatively minor traffic history. These factors led His Honour to make the recommendation for early parole.

The applicant submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive when compared with the penalties imposed in other cases for similar offences.

The Court has been supplied with copies of judgments in other like cases. I have looked at the decisions of Rahn, Sanderson, Porter, Byrne, Sheppard, Clauss, Ekstrom and Hayes.

The last two mentioned cases were appeals against sentences imposed for dangerous driving causing grievous-bodily harm an offence of dangerous driving causing death and…

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 Lennon

Details

AGLC: R v Lennon [1999] QCA 192
Case: [1999] QCA 192
Decision Date: 26 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lennon, the applicant, Geoffrey Norman Lennon, appealed against the sentence imposed on him for dangerous driving that resulted in grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with Thomas J, Derrington J, and Chesterman J presiding. The applicant, who had no prior criminal convictions and only minor traffic violations, was found to have driven while intoxicated, leading to a severe accident that caused significant injuries to the victim, Miss Buckley. Miss Buckley suffered multiple fractures, serious lacerations, and has been left with lasting pain, disability, and emotional distress.

The primary legal issue the Court of Appeal had to address was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The Court examined various other cases involving similar offences to assess whether there was consistency in sentencing for such cases. The Court acknowledged that while there should be some consistency in sentencing for like offences, the circumstances of each case should be considered individually.

The Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed excessive when compared with other cases for similar offences. The Court noted that the applicant's dangerous driving was due to excessive intoxication, not a deliberate act, and that his criminal history was not as severe as in other cases where heavier sentences were imposed. The Court set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence of six years' imprisonment, with a disqualification from holding a driver's licence for a period of ten years.

Orders