R v Riddell - [1997] QCA 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 005
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 470 of 1996.

Brisbane

[R v. Riddell]

T H E Q U E E N

SHAYNE DENNIS RIDDELL

(Applicant)

__________________________________________________________________

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
Fryberg J.

_____________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 14 February 1997

Reasons for Judgment delivered 21 February 1997

Judgment of the Court
_____________________________________________________________________

1.         APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED.
2.         APPEAL ALLOWED.
3.         CONVICTION RECORDED.
4.         THE APPLICANT IS SENTENCED TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF AN INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER.
5.         THE ORDER DISQUALIFYING THE APPLICANT FROM HOLDING AND OBTAINING A DRIVER’S LICENCE REMAINS.

_____________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - dangerous driving causing death.

Counsel:	Mr M Shanahan for the applicant. Mrs L Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing date:	6 February 1997.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 14 February 1997
Reasons for Judgment delivered 21 February 1997

The applicant was convicted in the District Court, on his own plea of guilty, on 14 October 1996, of dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm on 5 May 1995. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and he was disqualified from driving for 5 years. At the time of commission of this offence the applicant was 18 years of age. He has no other criminal convictions and no traffic convictions. Apart from this offence he appears to be a youth of good character and good prospects. He was a good student at school, he was in full time employment at the time of commission of the offence and his work future appeared bright.

It is plain that the cause of the tragic incident in which two of the applicant’s passengers were killed and one injured was the applicant’s driving at an excessive speed. The accident occurred at 9 pm at night in Azalea Street, Inala. The applicant knew the road, the night was fine and clear and the road was dry. The speed limit was 60 kmph. There is no suggestion that he had consumed alcohol.

Estimates of the applicant’s speed vary greatly. The applicant himself has no recollection of the accident. The surviving passenger estimated it at more than 70 kph. Other witnesses who saw it gave estimates varying between 70 and 150 kph. In the light of such varying estimates it is impossible to say more than that it was in excess of 70 kph.

Whilst travelling at this speed the car hit a hump in the road and became airborne. It was a relatively small hump, in the sense that it did not obscure the applicant’s view of oncoming traffic. The applicant, who was an inexperienced driver, apparently lost control of it and, when it returned to the road, it swerved one way and then the other, finally colliding with a tree causing, as we have said, the…

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 Riddell

Details

AGLC: R v Riddell [1997] QCA 5
Case: [1997] QCA 5
Decision Date: 14/02/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Riddell involved the applicant, Shayne Dennis Riddell, who was convicted in the District Court for dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm. The conviction and the sentence imposed were appealed to the Court of Appeal, which subsequently granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence. The applicant, who was 18 years old at the time of the offence, had no prior criminal or traffic convictions and appeared to be of good character and prospects. The tragic incident occurred on 5 May 1995 when the applicant was driving at an excessive speed, leading to a car accident that resulted in the deaths of two passengers and injuries to another. The applicant's speed at the time of the accident was estimated to be over 70 kmph, significantly exceeding the speed limit of 60 kmph. The applicant lost control of the vehicle after hitting a road hump, causing the car to become airborne and ultimately collide with a tree.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred on whether the original sentence of 18 months imprisonment was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The Court had to consider factors such as the applicant's age, lack of prior convictions, remorse shown, and the nature of the offence. The Crown prosecutor argued for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, while the applicant's counsel submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reconsidered in light of the applicant's inexperience and the absence of deliberate recklessness. The Court was required to balance the need for general deterrence against the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation, particularly given the applicant's background and remorse.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence was indeed excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in the case. The Court found that the applicant's dangerous driving was more attributable to excessive speed and inexperience rather than a deliberately dangerous course of conduct. Accordingly, the Court modified the sentence to one year imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order, and maintained the disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 5 years. The Court emphasized the importance of general deterrence while also considering the applicant's age, lack of prior convictions, and early plea of guilty. The new sentence was ordered to take effect from the date of the Court's judgment, accounting for the time the applicant had already spent in custody.

Orders