R v Mulholland - [2001] QCA 480

[2001] QCA 480

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
MACKENZIE J
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 122 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ROSS BARRY MULHOLLAND Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 05/11/2001

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant pleaded guilty to a number of serious offences all committed on 5 October 1999. In the mid-morning of that day, two police officers detected a Commodore vehicle driven by the applicant with one female passenger who was his co-offender in respect of some of the counts. They pursued the vehicle utilising their own vehicle's siren and flashing lights. The applicant sought to evade them, inferentially, because the back seat and boot of the Commodore obtained components of a methylamphetamine laboratory; written instructions for production of the drug were also within the vehicle along with a loaded automatic nine millimetre pistol.

The protracted pursuit covered approximately 16 kilometres including a motorway and other suburban roads. The speed of the Commodore reached very high levels, more than 210 kilometres per hour, for example, on the motorway with other traffic in the vicinity. The applicant's pattern of driving included collisions with other vehicles, a U-turn against the flow of traffic, straddling the centre line forcing other oncoming vehicles to leave the road, speeding in the presence of pedestrians, crossing a median strip into the path of oncoming traffic, driving through a red light, and mounting a footpath narrowly missing school children.

At one stage at a shopping centre in Kingston Road with many people about, the applicant stopped the Commodore by heavy application of the brakes and proceeded to fire at least three shots in the direction of the windscreen of a police vehicle. None of them hit the vehicle but one did pass through the windscreen of a bread van being driven by a Mr Furlong. Mr Furlong was struck by flying glass and by part of the jacket of the bullet. The learned Judge observed that Mr Furlong was lucky not to have been killed.

The chase ended when the applicant lost control of the Commodore and it collided with a tree. Two police officers, Lees and Panno, were in the vicinity. The applicant's
co-offender, the passenger, surrendered to the police. The applicant, however, fired his pistol at Police Officer Lees. Panno, who was behind Lees, took shelter in the police vehicle. Lees returned the fire. The applicant continued to fire directly at Lees stopping only when he ran out of ammunition. The applicant fired at least eight shots at Lees. The learned Judge said that Lees was "fortunate indeed not to be killed".

When his supply of ammunition was exhausted, the applicant surrendered to the police. A small bag of cannabis was then found in his possession.

With the agreement, indeed the encouragement, of both the prosecutor and defence counsel, the learned Judge assessed what he saw as the overall criminality characterising the offences and having determined upon a proper penalty imposed that for the most serious offence, then imposing lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for…

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 Mulholland

Details

AGLC: R v Mulholland [2001] QCA 480
Case: [2001] QCA 480
Decision Date: 05/11/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of Queensland, the case of R v Mulholland was heard and decided. The applicant, Ross Barry Mulholland, had pleaded guilty to a number of serious offences committed on 5 October 1999, which included dangerous driving, assault, and drug-related offences. The court was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing Judge, which was a total of 10 years imprisonment with concurrent terms for the various offences.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the learned Judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant's counsel argued that the Judge failed to sufficiently account for the plea of guilty and the absence of serious injury, and that the applicant showed potential for rehabilitation. The Crown Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found that the learned Judge had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the pleas of guilty, in arriving at the sentence. The Court noted that the nature of the offence and the dangerous conduct exhibited by the applicant warranted a strongly deterrent penalty. The Court held that the 10-year sentence for the most serious offence was not manifestly excessive and was, in fact, towards the lower end of the appropriate range. Therefore, the application for appeal against the sentence was refused by the Court of Appeal.

Orders