R v Plath - [2003] QCA 567

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Plath [2003] QCA 567

PARTIES:

R
v
PLATH, Daniel William
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 342 of 2003
DC No 91 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 December 2003

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Chesterman and McMurdo JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence, and allow the appeal to the extent only of varying the period the appellant was disqualified from holding a drivers license from five years to 12 months

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where out of court statement of appellant admitted into evidence – where learned trial judge instructed jury that they must take that evidence into account – where jury was not instructed on s 24 mistake of fact – whether jury should have been so instructed – whether Edwards direction should have been given in relation to statements of appellant – whether summing-up was unfair and unbalanced – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where appellant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after six months with operational period of five years – where appellant disqualified from holding driving license for five years – where appellant had significant traffic history – where nature of appellant’s employment rendered the inability to hold a drivers license a significant hardship – whether drivers license disqualification added to sentence otherwise imposed makes totality of the sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was convicted after a trial in the District Court at Bundaberg of the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after six months, with an operational period of three years, and he was disqualified from holding a driving license for a period of five years. By his notice of appeal he claimed that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and the sentence manifestly excessive. The appellant, who conducted his own case on appeal, was given leave to add particulars of the allegation that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, namely:

(i) There was a miscarriage of justice…

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 Plath

Details

AGLC: R v Plath [2003] QCA 567
Case: [2003] QCA 567
Decision Date: 19 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Plath concerned the appellant's conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant contested both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge's summing-up to the jury contained any misdirections or omissions, particularly regarding the consideration of an out-of-court statement made by the appellant and the potential necessity of instructions on mistake of fact and Edwards direction. Additionally, the court examined the proportionality and overall fairness of the sentence, particularly the five-year disqualification from holding a driving license.

The High Court assessed whether the summing-up was unfair and unbalanced, particularly in light of the jury being directed to consider the appellant's out-of-court statement without adequate instructions on its use. The court also evaluated whether there was a need to instruct the jury on the concept of mistake of fact under s 24 and whether an Edwards direction was required in relation to the appellant's statements. The Court concluded that, while there were certain deficiencies in the summing-up, these did not undermine the safety and satisfaction of the jury's verdict. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the Court found that the five-year disqualification from holding a driver's license, combined with the appellant's significant traffic history and employment circumstances, rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

In summary, the High Court upheld the conviction, dismissing the appeal on the basis that any errors in the summing-up did not prejudice the verdict. However, the Court allowed the appeal against the sentence, varying the period of disqualification from holding a driver's license from five years to 12 months. This adjustment was made to address the disproportionality of the original sentence in light of the appellant's specific circumstances. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the sentence was varied to reflect a more balanced and proportionate penalty.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence, and allow the appeal to the extent only of varying the period the appellant was disqualified from holding a drivers license from five years to 12 months

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 Plath [2003] QCA 567
PARTIES:	R v PLATH, Daniel William (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 342 of 2003 DC No 91 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 December 2003
JUDGES:	Williams JA and Chesterman and McMurdo JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence, and allow the appeal to the extent only of varying the period the appellant was disqualified from holding a drivers license from five years to 12 months
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where out of court statement of appellant admitted into evidence – where learned trial judge instructed jury that they must take that evidence into account – where jury was not instructed on s 24 mistake of fact – whether jury should have been so instructed – whether Edwards direction should have been given in relation to statements of appellant – whether summing-up was unfair and unbalanced – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where appellant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after six months with operational period of five years – where appellant disqualified from holding driving license for five years – where appellant had significant traffic history – where nature of appellant’s employment rendered the inability to hold a drivers license a significant hardship – whether drivers license disqualification added to sentence otherwise imposed makes totality of the sentence manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent