R v Palmer; Ex parte - [2019] QCA 133

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Palmer; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] QCA 133

PARTIES:

R
v
PALMER, Marc Antony
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 310 of 2018
DC No 748 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 25 October 2018 (Morzone QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 11 June 2019
Date of Publication of Reasons: 4 July 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 June 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Lyons SJA

ORDER:

Date of Order: 11 June 2019

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years – where the respondent was driving a prime mover and crashed into a line of cars that had stopped on a highway due to roadworks – where there were two signs signifying that there were roadworks ahead and that vehicles were to slow down – where the respondent claimed that he “zoned out” and failed to see the signs – where the respondent had .02 milligrams per kilogram of amphetamine and .2 milligrams per kilogram of methylamphetamine at the time of the crash – where toxicology experts for both parties agreed that the effect of these drugs upon a particular user could not be deduced from the blood concentration – where the learned sentencing judge found that the respondent was not adversely affected by the drugs – where the learned sentencing judge found that the respondent’s inattention was due to familiarity with the road as a professional truck driver – where the learned sentencing judge identified the respondent’s remorse, early guilty plea and unremarkable traffic history as factors in mitigation – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in exercise of discretion when weighing up the factors in mitigation against the weight of the respondent’s drug use – whether the sentence without a period of actual imprisonment was manifestly inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years – where the respondent was driving a prime mover and crashed into a line of cars that had stopped on a highway due to roadworks – where the respondent had .02 milligrams per kilogram of amphetamine and .2 milligrams per kilogram of methylamphetamine at the time of the crash – where it had been eight months since the respondent was sentenced to the hearing of the…

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 Palmer; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Palmer; Ex parte [2019] QCA 133
Case: [2019] QCA 133
Decision Date: 4 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Palmer, was convicted of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for three years, following a crash in which he drove into a line of cars stopped due to roadworks. The Attorney-General appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in his exercise of discretion when weighing the mitigating factors against the respondent's drug use, and if the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court considered whether resentencing to a term of actual imprisonment would be oppressive and contrary to the public interest, given the respondent's ongoing rehabilitation since the original sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge did not err in his assessment of the mitigating factors, nor in his conclusion that the respondent was not adversely affected by the drugs at the time of the crash. The court held that the sentence, while unusual, was not manifestly inadequate, particularly given the respondent's remorse, early guilty plea, and the absence of a significant criminal history. The court concluded that interfering with the respondent's rehabilitation by imposing a term of imprisonment would be oppressive and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the Attorney-General did not negate any reason why the residual discretion not to interfere should be exercised.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 11 June 2019

Appeal 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 Palmer; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] QCA 133
PARTIES:	R v PALMER, Marc Antony (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 310 of 2018 DC No 748 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 25 October 2018 (Morzone QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 11 June 2019 Date of Publication of Reasons: 4 July 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 June 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Lyons SJA
ORDER:	Date of Order: 11 June 2019 Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years – where the respondent was driving a prime mover and crashed into a line of cars that had stopped on a highway due to roadworks – where there were two signs signifying that there were roadworks ahead and that vehicles were to slow down – where the respondent claimed that he “zoned out” and failed to see the signs – where the respondent had .02 milligrams per kilogram of amphetamine and .2 milligrams per kilogram of methylamphetamine at the time of the crash – where toxicology experts for both parties agreed that the effect of these drugs upon a particular user could not be deduced from the blood concentration – where the learned sentencing judge found that the respondent was not adversely affected by the drugs – where the learned sentencing judge found that the respondent’s inattention was due to familiarity with the road as a professional truck driver – where the learned sentencing judge identified the respondent’s remorse, early guilty plea and unremarkable traffic history as factors in mitigation – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in exercise of discretion when weighing up the factors in mitigation against the weight of the respondent’s drug use – whether the sentence without a period of actual imprisonment was manifestly inadequate CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years – where the respondent was driving a prime mover and crashed into a line of cars that had stopped on a highway due to roadworks – where the respondent had .02 milligrams per kilogram of amphetamine and .2 milligrams per kilogram of methylamphetamine at the time of the crash – where it had been eight months since the respondent was sentenced to the hearing of the…