R v Newman - [1997] QCA 143

[1997] QCA 143

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ FITZGERALD P McPHERSON JA

CA No 88 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

ADAM MAXWELL NEWMAN Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 08/05/97
080597 T8-9/SJ3 M/T COA86/97
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant was sentenced to a term of
three years' imprisonment having been convicted after a trial of
dangerous driving causing death. He was 32 years of age at the
time of the offence and he had a large number of previous
traffic convictions.

The accident in which he, with his vehicle, was involved occurred on the Old Landsborough Road. On that road he came into collision with a vehicle in which the deceased was travelling proceeding in the opposite direction to the applicant. The driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling described himself as proceeding in a southerly direction towards Beerwah and as having crossed a bridge called the Mellum Creek Bridge. That driver said that he was proceeding at no more than 50 kilometres an hour and having crossed the bridge was starting to go up a rise when the applicant's vehicle came around a corner and went straight across in front of him so that it covered the whole of the roadway. The driver said that he did all he could by way of moving appropriately out of the path of the applicant's vehicle but he was unable to avoid it, there was a collision and the passenger in that vehicle was killed.

The accident happened in circumstances were there were some restrictions upon the roadway governing the approach of traffic in the direction the applicant was travelling. These would have had some effect, one would think, upon the speed which the applicant should have driven at. The exhibits have been available for us to look at and photographs included there show that the applicant would have had to drive through a "Road Work 080597 T8-9/SJ3 M/T COA86/97

Ahead" sign, then through a further sign indicating that there was a narrow bridge, another again warning of a "Give Way" sign and a 60 kph indication and a further one again indicating that the speed to be adopted was 40 kph.

The jury clearly found that the applicant was driving too fast in the circumstances and that that is what constituted the dangerous driving causing death. The Judge, in sentencing, adopted the same approach and simply declared that the applicant was driving too fast.

The criminal history dealing with relevant matters is a very bad one. There were other less relevant matters such as drug related offences, receiving and wilful damage in respect of all of which fines only were imposed and there was another conviction for assault where the applicant had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment and there were various offences described as street offences.

However, looking back at the applicant's driving history and starting at about 1982 we see that he was convicted in that year of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of point 12 per cent.…

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 Newman

Details

AGLC: R v Newman [1997] QCA 143
Case: [1997] QCA 143
Decision Date: 8/05/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Newman, the applicant, Adam Maxwell Newman, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death. The accident occurred on Old Landsborough Road where the applicant collided with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, resulting in the death of a passenger. The applicant had a significant history of traffic violations, including numerous speeding and alcohol-related offenses. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's sentence of three years' imprisonment was excessively harsh given his extensive criminal history and the circumstances of the offence. The Court considered previous cases with similar circumstances but found them inapplicable due to the unique factors in each case. The applicant argued that a sentence of two years' imprisonment or less should have been imposed. Conversely, the respondent maintained that the sentence was appropriate and should be upheld.

The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offence, concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the applicant's extensive history of dangerous driving, coupled with the gravity of the current offence, justified the imposed sentence. The Chief Justice, along with Fitzgerald P and McPherson JA, agreed that the application should be refused.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence of three years' imprisonment.

Orders