SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417 PARTIES: R
v
QUINN, Chelsy Mary
(applicant)FILE NO/S: CA No 241 of 2003 DC No 305 of 2003 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Cairns DELIVERED EX 22 September 2003 TEMPORE ON: DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 22 September 2003 JUDGES: Davies JA, Jones and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order madeORDER: Application dismissed 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 – GENERALLY – where applicant dangerously operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated and caused grievous bodily harm – whether sentence was manifestly excessive COUNSEL: P J Callaghan for the applicant R G Martin for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent
HOLMES J: On 20 June 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty on an ex officio indictment to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation, that at the time of the offence she was adversely affected by alcohol, her blood alcohol concentration being in excess of 150 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. She was sentenced to three years' imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three years, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of two years. She also pleaded guilty to a summary offence of driving a vehicle under the influence, for which no further penalty was imposed. She seeks leave to appeal against her sentence on the dangerous operation of a vehicle charge.
The circumstances of the offence were these. On the evening of 24 October 2002, over a five hour period, as the applicant admitted to police, she drank a bottle of white wine and five vodka and pineapple juice drinks. She and her boyfriend, Mr Ferry, had gone to the Cairns Casino but, while there, had a disagreement. Mr Ferry set out to walk home, but the applicant picked him up in her car as he walking home. Having got into the car, he realised that the applicant was intoxicated and twice asked her, unsuccessfully, to stop the car so that he could get out. The applicant then drove through a stop sign at an intersection at a speed in excess of 70 kilometres per hour and collided with another vehicle, a minibus taxi, which rolled over. According to Mr Ferry, they had earlier that night driven through the same intersection. The applicant commented that she never stopped at the stop sign at the intersection because she considered it to be on the wrong road. The collision occurred about 2 a.m. A breath test of the applicant about an hour later gave a reading of .188 per cent.
The…
Continue reading R v Quinn
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417
- Case
- [2003] QCA 417
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying a reduction. The Court examined the principles governing sentencing in cases involving dangerous driving and the need to balance punishment with deterrence. The Court also considered the aggravating and mitigating factors presented during the original sentencing hearing, including the gravity of the harm caused and the applicant's personal circumstances.
After thorough consideration, the Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the offence committed. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need for appropriate deterrence in cases of dangerous driving. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the sentence, affirming the original judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.