R v Quinn

Case [2003] QCA 417


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 made
ORDER:  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

Details
AGLC
R v Quinn [2003] QCA 417
Case
[2003] QCA 417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Quinn, the applicant, who had been convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, resulting in grievous bodily harm, appealed against the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and thus warranted a reduction. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate, given the circumstances and his personal background, including a history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

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.