R v Murphy

Case [2009] QCA 93


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93

PARTIES:

R
v
MURPHY, Helaman Wayne
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 332 of 2008
DC No 372 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 April 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Fraser JJA and Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant convicted on plea of guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm under s 328A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – where applicant sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years, and disqualified absolutely from holding a driver’s licence – where applicant was driving on a learner’s permit without a licensed driver present – where collision caused death of two people and grievous bodily harm to a third person – where applicant had no prior criminal record or traffic history – whether the sentencing judge placed too much weight on the outcome of, rather than the act of, the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – whether the sentence was “out of line with the general sentencing trend in comparable cases considered by the Court” – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A

R v Balfe[1998] QCA 14, cited
R v Gallaher[2004] QCA 240, considered
R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 154, cited
R v Hart (2008) 50 MVR 424; [2008] QCA 199, considered
R v Price (2005) 43 MVR 573; [2005] QCA 52, cited
R v Wilde, ex parte A-G (Qld) (2002) 135 A Crim R 538; [2002] QCA 501, cited
R v Wilson (2008) 51 MVR 344; [2008] QCA 349, considered

COUNSEL:

H C Fong for the applicant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Fraser JA.  I agree with his Honour’s reasons and with the order proposed by his Honour.

  1. FRASER JA: On 3 December 2008 the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty to an offence against s 328A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and causing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, with the imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of four years. The sentencing judge ordered that the applicant be disqualified absolutely from holding a driver's licence.

Circumstances of the offence

  1. Shortly after 6.00 pm on…

Continue reading R v Murphy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93
Case
[2009] QCA 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the appeal by the respondent against the sentence imposed by the District Court of Queensland, the appellant, Murphy, was convicted on a plea of guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred when the appellant was driving on a learner’s permit without a licensed driver present, resulting in a collision that caused the death of two people and grievous bodily harm to a third person. The appellant had no prior criminal record or traffic history. The District Court sentenced Murphy to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, and disqualified him absolutely from holding a driver’s licence for an operational period of four years.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on the tragic outcomes of the incident rather than the act of dangerous driving itself, and whether the sentence was excessively harsh when compared to similar cases considered by the Court. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and did not align with general sentencing trends for comparable cases.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the culpability of the appellant. The judge's assessment of the gravity of the offence, including the tragic outcomes, was deemed appropriate and did not unduly skew the sentencing decision. The Court further determined that the sentence was not out of line with comparable cases and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.