R v Moody - [2016] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Moody [2016] QCA 92

PARTIES:

R
v
MOODY, Donald John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 138 of 2015
DC No 35 of 2015
DC No 77 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg – Unreported, 19 June 2015

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2016

JUDGE:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – where the applicant was a 44 year old with a long history of polysubstance abuse – where the applicant had ingested amphetamine, methylamphetamine, diazepam, nordiazepam and THC at the time of the collision – where the applicant was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision, having already driven 178 km and been awake for two days under the influence of drugs – where the collision was catastrophic for a family, as two teenagers were rendered paraplegic and their mother was killed – where the applicant was sentenced to nine year’s imprisonment with no expressly fixed parole eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant submitted that because the sentencing judge said that he placed great weight on the applicant’s plea in determining not to declare a serious violence offence, his Honour failed to make an allowance for the plea of guilty in arriving at the sentence of a period of imprisonment – where the sentencing remarks were over nine pages long, contained significant detail and his Honour stated that in “all of the circumstances my determination is to impose nine years’ imprisonment” – whether the sentencing judge failed to make an allowance for the plea of guilty

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A

R v Frost; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 149 A Crim R 151; [2004] QCA 309, considered
R v Ross[2009] QCA 7, considered
R v Thomas (2015) 69 MVR 521; [2015] QCA 20, considered
R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, cited
R v Vessey; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (1996) 86 A Crim R 290; [1996] QCA 11, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
M Cowen QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Jackson J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

MORRISON JA:

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 Moody

Details

AGLC: R v Moody [2016] QCA 92
Case: [2016] QCA 92
Decision Date: 15 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Moody concerns the sentence imposed on the applicant, who was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while under the influence of intoxicating substances. The applicant, a 44-year-old with a history of polysubstance abuse, had ingested a combination of drugs at the time of the collision, driving on the wrong side of the road after being awake for two days and having travelled 178 km. The collision resulted in severe injuries to two teenagers, rendering them paraplegic, and the death of their mother. The applicant was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment without a fixed parole eligibility date. The primary issue before the court was whether this sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the applicant's plea of guilty when imposing the sentence.

The court examined the comprehensive sentencing remarks, which were over nine pages and included significant detail. The sentencing judge stated that, considering all the circumstances, the appropriate sentence was nine years' imprisonment. The court noted that the judge had placed considerable weight on the plea of guilty in deciding not to declare a serious violence offence but concluded that this did not necessarily translate into an allowance for the plea when determining the length of the sentence. The court held that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the collision. The court also found that the sentencing judge had sufficiently considered the plea of guilty in his determination.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the plea of guilty in his sentencing remarks. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of nine years' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

CITATION:	R v Moody [2016] QCA 92
PARTIES:	R v MOODY, Donald John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 138 of 2015 DC No 35 of 2015 DC No 77 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg – Unreported, 19 June 2015
DELIVERED ON:	15 April 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2016
JUDGE:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – where the applicant was a 44 year old with a long history of polysubstance abuse – where the applicant had ingested amphetamine, methylamphetamine, diazepam, nordiazepam and THC at the time of the collision – where the applicant was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision, having already driven 178 km and been awake for two days under the influence of drugs – where the collision was catastrophic for a family, as two teenagers were rendered paraplegic and their mother was killed – where the applicant was sentenced to nine year’s imprisonment with no expressly fixed parole eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant submitted that because the sentencing judge said that he placed great weight on the applicant’s plea in determining not to declare a serious violence offence, his Honour failed to make an allowance for the plea of guilty in arriving at the sentence of a period of imprisonment – where the sentencing remarks were over nine pages long, contained significant detail and his Honour stated that in “all of the circumstances my determination is to impose nine years’ imprisonment” – whether the sentencing judge failed to make an allowance for the plea of guilty Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A R v Frost; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 149 A Crim R 151; [2004] QCA 309, considered R v Ross[2009] QCA 7, considered R v Thomas (2015) 69 MVR 521; [2015] QCA 20, considered R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, cited R v Vessey; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (1996) 86 A Crim R 290; [1996] QCA 11, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the applicant M Cowen QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent