SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Markusic [2004] QCA 249
PARTIES:
R
v
MARKUSIC, Emil
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 173 of 2004
DC No 85 of 2004DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
26 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
26 July 2004
JUDGES:
McPherson and Williams JJA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – GENERALLY – where leave sought to appeal against sentence – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment – where sentence suspended after 18 months – where applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation – where applicant adversely affected by alcohol – where applicant drove through red light - where applicant caused grievous bodily harm – where applicant 72 – whether insufficient account taken of age
R v Antoney [2000] QCA 180; CA No 402 of 1999, 16 May 2000, distinguished
R v McGuire; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 439; CA No 197 of 2002, 18 October 2002, distinguished
R v Purcell [1999] QCA 316; CA No 192 of 1999, 17 August 1999, distinguished
The Queen v Schloss (1998) 100 A Crim R 80, citedCOUNSEL:
A F Maher for the applicant
R G Martin for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Lake Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
MACKENZIE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of five years' imprisonment to be suspended after 18 months with an operational period of five years for an offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation that he was adversely affected by alcohol and caused grievous bodily harm.
The concentration of alcohol in his blood about one-and-a-half hours after the incident was 0.262 per cent and would have been in the vicinity of 0.29 per cent at the time of the incident.
The applicant was 72 years of age at the time of the offence. He had no criminal convictions but had incurred two fines for exceeding the speed limit by at least 15 kilometres an hour in 1998 and 2002 and one for failing to provide a breath specimen in 1989. The learned sentencing Judge was told that, apart from a back problem, he had no major medical problems and was not on any significant medication.
The offence occurred at about 10 p.m. on the 22nd of December 2002 at the intersection of Bermuda Street and Reedy Creek Road, West Burleigh. Bermuda Street is one of the major north south arterial roads on the Gold Coast and Reedy Creek Road is a major road which runs in a generally westerly direction from Burleigh to the Pacific Motorway. Road…
Continue reading R v Markusic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Markusic [2004] QCA 249
- Case
- [2004] QCA 249
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. It was acknowledged that Markusic's age was a mitigating factor; however, the court also highlighted the severity of the offence and the harm caused. The court concluded that the sentence, while lenient due to Markusic's age, was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances. The court further noted that the sentence reflected a balanced approach to the mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning was that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence, taking into account all relevant factors. The court found no error in the sentencing process and determined that the sentence did not represent a substantial miscarriage of justice. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
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.