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. 2 60

The police called upon the applicant to stop but the vehicle	10
reversed in their direction as a result of which they took
evasive action. It was not contended by the prosecution that
the vehicle was deliberately driven at the police. The
applicant then drove down the road, fishtailing the vehicle.
The police pursued him with their flashing light and siren	20
activated. The applicant failed to stop when he made a right- hand turn and then drove through a Stop sign at another intersection without stopping.
He parked his vehicle on the wrong side of the street a short	30
distance further on and fled from it. He was caught soon afterwards having fallen down a set of stairs nearby. The driving occurred over a distance of, at most, a kilometre.
The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence. In the rather	40
lengthy period between the offence and sentence he had
attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and completed another
program relating to consumption of alcohol. He had stopped
driving and had sold his motor vehicle. He had also formed a
relationship which, in the Court below, was said to be a good	50
sentence.

influence on him in the period between the offence and the and on the basis upon which he was sentenced had only a minor record. 3 60

It was submitted that there was insufficient material from	10
which it could be concluded that the applicant was not
suitable for community based orders or an Intensive Correction
Order. It was submitted that the facts pointed to the
suitability of those kinds of orders. The principle derived
from The Queen v. Coake, Court of Appeal 403 of 1998, set out	20
earlier today in The Queen v. Collier, Court of Appeal 236 of 2003, governs cases of this kind.
The applicant was 27 years at the time and therefore should
have been endowed with a little more maturity than many others	30
who offend in this way.
The manner of entry on to the roadway was dangerous. The
manner in which he extracted himself from the position he had
got into because of that driving had the consequence, even if	40
inadvertent, of putting the police officers in potential danger. Driving through the Stop sign without stopping in that area of the Gold Coast was inherently dangerous.
As against those factors he had taken rehabilitative steps and	50
there were signs that he may have had his life under control due to the relationship he was in. The imposition of a head sentence of 18 months was, in my view, not beyond a

4   60

permissible range. The only issue is whether requiring him to serve six months of that period would be manifestly excessive.

Having regard to the circumstances and background matters to

which I have referred I am not persuaded that requiring the	10
applicant to serve six months of the period renders the sentence as a whole manifestly excessive and I would therefore refuse the application.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.	20
HELMAN J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.
30

-----

40

50

5   60