R v Parker - [2003] QCA 316

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Parker [2003] QCA 316
PARTIES: R
v
PARKER, Adam Terrence
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 139 of 2003 DC No 447 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX 24 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 24 July 2003
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Mackenzie and Helman JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of dangerous driving with circumstance of aggravation – where sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after 6 months for 2 years – where applicant claimed sentence was manifestly excessive – whether excessive having regard to comparable cases
COUNSEL: R Frigo for the applicant
M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MACKENZIE J: The applicant who was 27 at the time of the offence pleaded guilty to an offence of dangerous driving with the circumstance of aggravation that he was adversely affected by alcohol at the time. His blood alcohol concentration was 0.219.

months for two years. He had no relevant criminal convictions	10
although he did have a short criminal history for unrelated matters - false pretences and stealing.
The extent of his traffic record was the subject of dispute in
the Court below. It turned on whether two previous drink	20
driving offences had been revived by the acceptance of the plea of guilty in the present proceedings. My view of the matter was that the convictions had been revived by the
circumstance of the acceptance of and acting on the plea of
guilty and that, if the sentencing Judge below did not take	30
them into account, he was erroneous in that regard.
In any event it was not disputed in this Court by counsel that
the view expressed below by other counsel was incorrect. The
sentencing Judge had volunteered that he did not think that	40
the extent of the traffic record would matter one way or the other.
Police who were in Old Burleigh Road, Surfers Paradise, heard
the screech of tyres and saw the vehicle driven by the	50
suddenly and come to rest in the vicinity of a power pole.

He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after six

applicant come out of a nearby driveway, cross the road that the applicant had not had regard to whether there were pedestrians or vehicles near the exit from the driveway. There was a female passenger in the vehicle.

The police called upon the applicant to stop but the vehicle	10
reversed in their direction as a result of which…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2003] QCA 316
Case: [2003] QCA 316
Decision Date: 24/07/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Parker involved the appellant who had been convicted of dangerous driving with a circumstance of aggravation. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after serving six months, for a period of two years. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant applied to the court to reduce the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive in light of comparable cases. The court needed to assess the appellant's claim and determine whether the sentence was appropriate and just under the circumstances.

The court considered various factors in assessing the appellant's claim, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's previous criminal history, and the sentences imposed in similar cases. The court found that the appellant's actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety of others on the road, warranting a significant punishment. However, the court also noted the appellant's lack of a prior criminal record and the fact that the sentence imposed was within the range typically seen for such offences. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the circumstances and the need to balance the need for punishment with the need for proportionality.

Having thoroughly reviewed the matter, the court determined that the appellant's application to reduce the sentence was not justified. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not exceed the bounds of what was reasonable in the circumstances. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts and the relevant legal principles. Consequently, the application to reduce the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.

CITATION:	R v Parker [2003] QCA 316
PARTIES:	R v PARKER, Adam Terrence (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 139 of 2003 DC No 447 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX	24 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Mackenzie and Helman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of dangerous driving with circumstance of aggravation – where sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after 6 months for 2 years – where applicant claimed sentence was manifestly excessive – whether excessive having regard to comparable cases
COUNSEL:	R Frigo for the applicant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent