R v Middleton - [2021] QCA 288

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Middleton [2021] QCA 288

PARTIES:

R
v
MIDDLETON, Andrew John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 58 of 2021
DC No 2015 of 2020
DC No 468 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 March 2021 (Chief Judge Devereaux SC)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 22 November 2021
Date of Publication of Reasons: 17 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P, Mullins JA and Boddice J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 22 November 2021

Application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death, while adversely affected by an intoxicated sentence, while excessively speeding – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years and the date for eligibility for parole was set after serving three years of the sentence – where at the time of the accident the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder related to military deployment – where the accident causing death had occurred after the applicant had driven about four kilometres with a very high blood alcohol concentration and had been driving excessively fast for significantly more than 350 metres before the accident – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Hopper[2011] QCA 296, cited
R v Nikora (2014) 243 A Crim R 498; [2014] QCA 192, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
C N Marco for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Legal for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: For the reasons of Mullins JA, I joined in making the orders on 22 November 2021.
MULLINS JA: On 29 March 2021 Mr Middleton pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, while excessively speeding and to one summary charge of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor – type 2 vehicle related offence. For the indictable offence (for which the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment), he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years and the date for eligibility for parole was fixed at 29 March 2024 which is after serving three years of the sentence. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence absolutely from the date of sentence. In respect of the summary charge, Mr Middleton was sentenced to imprisonment for a concurrent term of six months and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of six months from the date of sentence. Mr Middleton applied for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground the sentence is manifestly excessive. The court refused 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 Middleton

Details

AGLC: R v Middleton [2021] QCA 288
Case: [2021] QCA 288
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Middleton involved the appellant who was convicted and sentenced for dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge, which occurred while they were adversely affected by intoxication and driving at an excessive speed. The trial court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for eight years, with eligibility for parole set after the appellant had served three years. At the time of the offence, the appellant was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder related to their military service. The appellant drove approximately four kilometres with a very high blood alcohol concentration and was travelling at an excessive speed for over 350 metres before the fatal accident occurred.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate given their impaired state due to intoxication and their pre-existing mental health condition. The court needed to determine if the sentence was so disproportionate as to amount to an error of law, thereby warranting interference by the appellate court.

The court carefully considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the appellant's state of mind at the time of the incident, and the impact of their actions. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the appellant's significant intoxication and excessive speeding. However, the court also recognised the appellant's impaired state and the mitigating factor of their post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite these considerations, the court found that the sentence did not reach the threshold of being manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the range of acceptable outcomes for the offence committed under the given circumstances.

No appeal was allowed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused on 22 November 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 22 November 2021

Application for leave to appeal is 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 Middleton [2021] QCA 288
PARTIES:	R v MIDDLETON, Andrew John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 58 of 2021 DC No 2015 of 2020 DC No 468 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 March 2021 (Chief Judge Devereaux SC)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 22 November 2021 Date of Publication of Reasons: 17 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P, Mullins JA and Boddice J
ORDER:	Date of Order: 22 November 2021 Application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death, while adversely affected by an intoxicated sentence, while excessively speeding – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years and the date for eligibility for parole was set after serving three years of the sentence – where at the time of the accident the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder related to military deployment – where the accident causing death had occurred after the applicant had driven about four kilometres with a very high blood alcohol concentration and had been driving excessively fast for significantly more than 350 metres before the accident – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Hopper[2011] QCA 296, cited R v Nikora (2014) 243 A Crim R 498; [2014] QCA 192, cited R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the applicant C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anderson Legal for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent