R v Misumi

Case [2002] QCA 491


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Misumi [2002] QCA 491

PARTIES:

R
v

MISUMI, Kenji
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 256 of 2002
DC No 140 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

12 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA, Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced to six months imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction order for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – conviction recorded – where applicant driving under speed limit – where applicant indicated and turned right but collided with complainant’s vehicle which the applicant did not see – where applicant had no prior criminal or traffic history – whether sentence imposed is manifestly excessive – where sentence within range

 R v Brown, CA No 167 of 1993, 4 August 1993,  distinguished
R v Edwards
[1996] QCA 141;CA No 430 of 1995, 31 January 1996, distinguished
R v Hamilton
[2000] QCA 286; CA No 75 of 2000, 21 July 2000, considered
R v Harris; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 392; CA No 161 of 1999, 21 September 1999, considered
R v Russo [1994] QCA 388; CA No 140 of 1994, 5 October 1994, considered

COUNSEL:

M E Johnson for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Price & Roobottom for applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  I invite Justice Mullins to deliver the first judgment.

MULLINS J:  The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the sentence of six months' imprisonment, to be served by way of intensive correction order, imposed on him in the District Court at Southport, on 1 August 2002, for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, causing grievous bodily harm.

The applicant was driving his Landrover four wheel drive in a northerly direction along Bailey Crescent, Southport, on
11 December 2000 and the complainant was driving his Ford Festiva sedan in the opposite direction.

The complainant was seen to be drinking from a bottle of beer and immediately prior to the impact between the two vehicles, the complainant's vehicle was seen to veer towards the centre of the carriageway, but not cross the centre line, before correcting its path of travel.

The applicant's vehicle was travelling slower than the designated speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour.  The right turn indicator was activated and the applicant's vehicle was then seen to turn right, cutting the corner across the path of the oncoming vehicle and a collision occurred.

The…

Continue reading R v Misumi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Misumi [2002] QCA 491
Case
[2002] QCA 491
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Misumi involved the applicant appealing against the sentence imposed by the court. The applicant had been convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The applicant had turned right at an intersection and collided with the complainant's vehicle, which the applicant had not seen. The applicant had no prior criminal or traffic history and was sentenced to six months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The applicant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the range of sentencing options available for the offence and found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence. The court also considered the circumstances of the offence, including the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal or traffic history. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application.

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence and that the circumstances of the offence did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

The court made no orders in relation to the application for leave to appeal. The conviction and sentence imposed by the court remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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.