District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Sentence: 24 September 2018 (Cash QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:
12 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
13 March 2019
JUDGES:
Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Bradley J
ORDER:
The application is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm before leaving the scene – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years – where the applicant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of two years from the date of sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
Criminal Code (Qld), s 328A(4)
R v Gruenert; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2005] QCA 154, distinguished R v Harris; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (1999) 30 MVR 334; [1999] QCA 392, distinguished R v Huxtable (2014) 68 MVR 367; [2014] QCA 249, considered R v Liu (2016) 77 MVR 104; [2016] QCA 186, considered R v MacDonald (2014) 244 A Crim R 148; [2014] QCA 9, considered R v Maher[2012] QCA 7, considered R v Osborne (2014) 69 MVR 45; [2014] QCA 291, considered R v Proesser[2007] QCA 61, distinguished R v Schoner (2015) 255 A Crim R 470; (2015) 73 MVR 107; [2015] QCA 190, considered R v Stevenson (2016) 259 A Crim R 396; (2016) 76 MVR 39; [2016] QCA 162, considered R v Vance; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2007) 48 MVR 375; [2007] QCA 269, distinguished
COUNSEL:
C F C Wilson for the applicant C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Martin Law for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Bradley J and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Bradley J and with the reasons given by his Honour.
BRADLEY J: On 24 September 2018, the applicant was sentenced for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing the death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another.[1] The crime was committed in the aggravating circumstance that, while the applicant ought reasonably to have known that one or other of the persons had been killed or injured, he left the scene of the incident before a police officer arrived.[2]
[1]Criminal CodeAct 1899 (Qld) (Code), s 328A(4).
[2]Code, s 328A(4)(c).
The learned primary judge sentenced the applicant to three years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months for 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 Lightbody
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Lightbody [2019] QCA 61
Case
[2019] QCA 61
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Lightbody, was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm before leaving the scene. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of two years. Lightbody appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Lightbody's counsel argued that the sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offence, given the applicant's prior criminal history and the serious consequences of his actions. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the circumstances of the case, including the applicant's guilty plea and remorse. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence in determining the appeal.
In assessing the sentence, the court examined the circumstances of the offence and the characteristics of the offender. The court noted the seriousness of the offence, including the fact that the applicant caused the death of another person and left the scene. The court also considered the applicant's prior criminal history and his guilty plea, which resulted in a reduced sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar conduct.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and that there were no grounds for interference.