R v Rahn - [1998] QCA 338

[1998] QCA 338

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
MACKENZIE J
HELMAN J

CA No 180 of 1998

THE QUEEN

NICHOLAS MACKENZIE RAHN Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 06/08/98

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court for a variety of offences committed over a five month period, commencing in July 1997.

The conduct for which he fell to be sentenced, commenced with some offences of dishonesty in that month. Then on 14 August 1997, he dangerously drove a motor vehicle whilst affected by an intoxicating substance, amphetamines, and caused death. Unfortunately, awareness of the dreadful consequences of his actions did not interrupt his extended anti-social spate of offences. On 30 October 1997, he was convicted of a relatively serious example of the offence of threatening violence. Over the period between July 1997 and January 1998 there were 14 offences of dishonesty, comprising two of stealing, seven of receiving, one of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and various offences involving the breaking and entering of dwellinghouses. There was also an offence in September 1997 of uttering counterfeit money.

The learned sentencing Judge imposed sentences of six and a half years on the dangerous driving causing death and disqualified the applicant absolutely from holding a driver's licence. He imposed six months cumulative with respect to the threatening violence offence. He imposed 12 months cumulative, with respect to the property offences that have been mentioned above and he imposed three months on the uttering counterfeit money charge, the latter sentence being concurrent. By that means, His Honour framed an effective sentence of eight years imprisonment, with a recommendation that he be considered for release on parole after three years.
The applicant was, at the relevant time, 27 years old. His past criminal history is limited, though by no means insignificant. It includes possession of cannabis, discharge of a firearm, other offences of a like nature, malicious damage, larceny and various driving offences. These include three separate convictions for driving in excess of the prescribed concentration of alcohol. On each occasion his licence was suspended for a limited period. He also has a number of convictions for speeding and other less serious traffic offences. None of the above however resulted in prison sentences.

The circumstances of the offences may be briefly stated. The driving offence occurred in the afternoon when the applicant was driving a vehicle, towing a boat on a trailer along a road in Camira. The deceased was driving in the opposite direction. The applicant's vehicle was observed to move onto the incorrect side of the road. One witness thought that it was actually going to make a right-hand turn into a side street, but there was no indicator activated on the vehicle.

A collision occurred and the other driver, a mother of young children, was killed. Road conditions were described as good to excellent. A blood sample from the applicant revealed point 035 milligrams per litre of amphetamine and point 64 milligrams per…

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 Rahn

Details

AGLC: R v Rahn [1998] QCA 338
Case: [1998] QCA 338
Decision Date: 6/08/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rahn, the applicant, Nicholas MacKenzie Rahn, sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the District Court for various offences committed over a five-month period from July 1997. The offences included dishonesty, dangerous driving while under the influence of amphetamines resulting in death, threatening violence, and uttering counterfeit money. The District Court judge imposed a total effective sentence of eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after three years.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the cumulative sentences imposed on the applicant were excessive, considering the totality principle, which requires a holistic approach to sentencing multiple offences. The applicant argued that the combined effect of the sentences was disproportionate and did not sufficiently recognise his cooperation. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and within the prescribed range, particularly for the fatal driving offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had considered the competing arguments and submissions made by both parties and had exercised sound judicial discretion in determining the sentences. The Court was guided by recent cases and the new section 9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, which emphasised public safety. The Court concluded that the total response of the sentencing judge was appropriate and refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The judges concurred in this decision.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was that the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders