Legal Research
Cases
R v Price

R v Price

Case [2005] QCA 52 4 March 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Price [2005] QCA 52

PARTIES:

R
v
PRICE, Barry John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 30 of 2005
DC No 262 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 March 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson JA and White and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM – GENERALLY – applicant truck driver ignored give-way sign and collided with van – driver of van killed and passenger injured – accident caused by ‘momentary inattention’ – sentence two years’ imprisonment suspended after four months upheld

R v Balfe [1993] QCA 014; CA No 444 of 1997, 20 February 1998, cited
R v Manners, ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 301; CA No 176 of 2002, 20 August 2002, cited
R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, considered
R v Wilde, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 135 A Crim R; cited

COUNSEL:

B W Farr for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant
Ryan & Bosscher for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: The applicant, Barry John Price, pleaded guilty on 21st February 2005 in the District Court in Brisbane to the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm.

He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment to be suspended after four months for an operational period of two years. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for two years.

Mr Price is a 60 year old truck-driver by occupation. He was 58 at the time of the accident on 26 May 2003. At 4:20 a.m. the applicant was driving a prime mover on Orchard Road, Richlands towards the intersection of Pine Road. A bread delivery van driven by the deceased was travelling along Pine Road also towards this intersection. Both vehicles had their lights on. The applicant failed to observe a give-way sign and collided with the bread delivery van. The force of the collision propelled the bread van through a fence and into a stand of trees alongside the road. Both occupants of the van, who were not wearing seat-belts, were flung from the vehicle. The driver of the bread van was killed. He was found dead at the scene by some ambulance officers. The passenger suffered severe head and chest injuries and was detained in hospital for some six months or so after the incident, although he appears to have made a reasonable recovery since then.

The applicant, who also suffered injury in the collision, has no memory of the accident or of why…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2005] QCA 52
Case: [2005] QCA 52
Decision Date: 4 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Price was heard in a court where the applicant, a truck driver, was charged with culpable or dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm. The applicant had ignored a give-way sign and collided with a van, resulting in the death of the van driver and injury to the van passenger. The applicant's actions were described as due to a 'momentary inattention'. The case concerned the applicant's sentence of two years' imprisonment, suspended after four months, and the applicant sought leave to appeal against this sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the applicant's actions, given the severity of the consequences of the collision. The court was required to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, given the seriousness of the applicant's actions and the resulting consequences. The court noted that the applicant had no prior convictions and had shown remorse for his actions. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the impact of the sentence on the applicant and his family. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.

The court's decision was that the sentence of two years' imprisonment, suspended after four months, was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused, and no further appeal was permitted. The court's decision affirms the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, particularly in cases where the consequences are severe. The court also highlights the need for appropriate sentencing that balances the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Price [2005] QCA 52

Most Recent Citation

R v Cunningham [2005] QCA 321

Cases citing this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v Adam
[2022] QCA 41 Para 16

…since R v Wilde ; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) .[40] [39]see R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93 [22] adopting the observations of McPherson JA in R v Price [2005] QCA 52; R v Barker [2013] QCA 340 [17]. [40](2002) 135 A Crim R 538; [2002] QCA 501.…
R v Gazzara
[2017] QCA 168 Para 9

…v Danter [22] and R v Osborne .[23] [21][2014] QCA 9. [22][2016] QCA 94. [23][2014] QCA 291. Her Honour had also been referred to R v Price [2005] QCA 52.…
R v Phillips
[2017] QCA 41 Para 6

…ng discretion.[19] [14]See R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63. [15][2004] QCA 116. [16][2008] QCA 165. [17][1997] QCA 473. [18][1998] QCA 162. [19] R v Hoad [2005] QCA 52 at 9.…
Hughes v Commissioner of Police
[2016] QDC 325 Para 1

…hat the Magistrate took into account comparable cases including R v Whiting [2009] QCA 338, R v Newly , R v Cunningham , R v Price (2005) 43 MVR 573; [2005] QCA 52 and R v Smith (2004) 40 MVR 312; [2004] QCA 126.…
R v Bailey
[2014] QCA 316 Para 1

…is Court, of setting parole eligibility at one-third of the total sentence.[45] [44]Section 184(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2006. [45] R v Hoad [2005] QCA 52 at [9].…
R v Osborne
[2014] QCA 291

…dered R v Nhu Ly [1996] 1 Qd R 543; [1995] QCA 139, considered R v Plath [2003] QCA 567, cited R v Price (2005) 43 MVR 573; [2005] QCA 52, cited R v Torrens [2011] QCA 38, followed COUNSEL: J R Hunter QC, with J A Greggery, for the applicant B J Power for the respondent SOLICITORS: Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the…
R v Huxtable
[2014] QCA 249 Para 1

…listing. The prosecutor referred to R v Allen [6] and R v Maher [7] and stated that the maximum penalty for the offence was 10 years imprisonment. [5][2005] QCA 52, 4. [6][2012] QCA 259. [7][2012] QCA 7.…
R v MacDonald
[2014] QCA 9 Para 1

…, Act No 14 of 2007. Assent was give on 20 March 2007. Section 4 of that Act increased the maximum penalty to 10 years imprisonment. [29] R v Price [2005] QCA 52 (“ Price ”), at p 5. [30] R v Wilde; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2002) 135 A Crim R 538; [2002] QCA 501 (“ Wilde ”). [31] R v Maher [2012] QCA 7, at [43].…
R v Barker
[2013] QCA 340 Para 1

…(Qld) .[1] [1](2002) 135 A Crim R 538; [2002] QCA 501; See R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93 at [22] adopting the observations of McPherson JA in R v Price [2005] QCA 52.…
R v Maher
[2012] QCA 7 Para 1

…o be persuaded that the applicant’s conduct could be characterised as “momentary inattention”. [7][2008] QCA 199. [8][2005] QCA 154. [9][2005] QCA 52.…
R v Damrow
[2009] QCA 245 Para 1

…rson; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1998) 104 A Crim R 489; [1998] QCA 355, R v Harris; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 392, R v Hardes [2003] QCA 47 , R v Price [2005] QCA 52, R v Gruenert; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 154, R v Wilson [2008] QCA 349 and R v Murphy [2009] QCA 93. His Honour quoted the statement in Gruenert…
R v Towers
[2009] QCA 159 Para 1

…e .[8] The maximum penalty applicable in each of those cases was seven years imprisonment. [5][2007] QCA 61. [6][2004] QCA 318. [7][2005] QCA 431. [8][2005] QCA 52.…
R v Murphy
[2009] QCA 93 Para 1

…llowing decisions: R v Harris, ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 392; R v Hart [2008] QCA 199; R v Gruenert, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 154; R v Price [2005] QCA 52; R v Manners, ex parte A-G (Qld) (2002) 132 A Crim R 363, [2002] QCA 301; and R v Balfe [1998] QCA 14.…
R v Wilson
[2008] QCA 349 Para 1

…ting a re-trial. [19] Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A(4)(a). [20][2005] QCA 154. [21](2002) 132 A Crim R 363; [2002] QCA 301. [22](2005) 43 MVR 573; [2005] QCA 52. [23](2008) 50 MVR 424; [2008] QCA 199. [24][1997] QCA 143.…
R v Hart
[2008] QCA 199 Para 19

…at the sentence imposed in this case was manifestly excessive. [4] R v Balfe [1998] QCA 14; R v Manners; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 301; R v Price [2005] QCA 52; R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197.…
R v Cunningham
[2005] QCA 321

…conviction or from the date of sentence Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 187 In re Hamilton; In re Forrest [1981] AC 1038, applied R v Price [2005] QCA 52; CA No 30 of 2005, 4 March 2005, considered R v Smith [2004] QCA 126; (2004) 145 A Crim R 397, considered Re Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002…

View all 16 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 5 of 5 shown

R v Roser
[2004] QCA 318

…of 1997, 20 February 1998, cited R v Manners , ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 301; CA No 176 of 2002, 20 August 2002, cited R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, considered R v Wilde, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 135 A Crim R; cited COUNSEL: B W Farr for the applicant M J Copley fo…
R v Wilde; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2002] QCA 501

…, 20 August 2002, cited R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, considered R v Wilde, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 135 A Crim R; cited COUNSEL: B W Farr for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant Ryan & Bo…
R v Manners; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2002] QCA 301

…pended after four months upheld R v Balfe [1993] QCA 014; CA No 444 of 1997, 20 February 1998, cited R v Manners , ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 301; CA No 176 of 2002, 20 August 2002, cited R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, considered R v Wilde, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 13…
R v Balfe
[1993] QCA 014

…ed – accident caused by ‘momentary inattention’ – sentence two years’ imprisonment suspended after four months upheld R v Balfe [1993] QCA 014; CA No 444 of 1997, 20 February 1998, cited R v Manners , ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 301; CA No 176 of 2002, 20 August 2002, cited R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004…
R v Balfe
[1998] QCA 014

…at the offence here involved momentary inattention and driving a heavy vehicle with fatal consequences, this case bears some resemblance to R v Balfe [1998] QCA 014 and R v Manners; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 301, in each of which much heavier sentences were imposed than here. The effective sentences re…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Price [2005] QCA 52
PARTIES:	R v PRICE, Barry John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 30 of 2005 DC No 262 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	4 March 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 March 2005
JUDGES:	McPherson JA and White and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM – GENERALLY – applicant truck driver ignored give-way sign and collided with van – driver of van killed and passenger injured – accident caused by ‘momentary inattention’ – sentence two years’ imprisonment suspended after four months upheld R v Balfe [1993] QCA 014; CA No 444 of 1997, 20 February 1998, cited R v Manners, ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 301; CA No 176 of 2002, 20 August 2002, cited R v Roser [2004] QCA 318; CA No 265 of 2004, 1 September 2004, considered R v Wilde, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501; (2002) 135 A Crim R; cited
COUNSEL:	B W Farr for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant Ryan & Bosscher for the respondent