R v Ross

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ross [2007] QDC 383

PARTIES:

R

v

SHANE PAUL ROSS

FILE NO/S:

Indictment 369/2007

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

9 November 2007

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The defendant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be wholly suspended, with an operational period of 3 years. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of 9 months.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE AFTER PLEA – dangerous driving causing death – momentary inattention – “non-custodial” sentence as per R v Gruenert ex parte Attorney-General imposed

LEGISLATION:

Criminal CodeAct 1899 (Qld)

CASES:

R v Gruenert; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 154

COUNSEL:

Ms Farnden for the Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr Smith for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Gilmore and Associates for the Defendant

[1] HIS HONOUR: Stand up, please, Mr Ross. Mr Ross, you pleaded guilty here today to a single count of dangerous driving causing death.  Every one of us who drives on the road has an ongoing obligation at all times to ensure that we drive safely, not just for our own sake, because of course that is an important part of the obligation, but for the sake of all other road users.

[2] You, of course, more than most people, would be both aware, and would understand that obligation, because your entire career has been involved in the motor vehicle industry as a mechanic.
[3] As part of that obligation, it is the requirement of every driver, at literally every second of being behind the wheel, to pay sufficient attention at all times to ensure the safety of all other road users, as well as the safety of yourself.
[4] One of the most significant parts of that obligation, of course, is just the merest fall by any driver below the appropriate level of attention required can have catastrophic consequences, and it is clear, and I do not need to repeat it, but on this particular evening, that momentary inattention on your part had a catastrophic consequence for the rider of the motor bike, Mr Dulac.
[5] Ultimately, of course, having pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving, for that you must receive a sentence.  In passing that sentence, I will indicate very clearly on the record, that I have taken account of all of the facts and circumstances, and, in particular, I have been assisted by reading the victim impact statement.  That statement, as well as the significant number of character references tendered on your behalf, all indicate to me that, more than anything else, both those who have give you references, and Ms Stephanie Dulac who has provided a victim impact statement, all reflect in one way or another on our shared humanity.
[6] Your life itself has had its share of tragedy, perhaps some would say more than its fair share of tragedy.  You lost your father…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ross and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] QDC 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ross involved the defendant, Ross, who had been charged with dangerous driving causing death. The incident occurred due to a momentary inattention while driving, which resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The case was heard in a higher court where the issue of sentencing after a plea was addressed. The primary legal issue was whether a non-custodial sentence, similar to that imposed in R v Gruenert ex parte Attorney-General, was appropriate in this case.

The court considered the principles set out in R v Gruenert ex parte Attorney-General, which emphasises the importance of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation when imposing a sentence for dangerous driving causing death. Given that this was Ross's first offence and he displayed genuine remorse, the court found that a non-custodial sentence could be appropriate. The court balanced the need to deter and denounce such behaviour with the potential for rehabilitation and the impact on Ross’s life. Ultimately, the court determined that a wholly suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with an operational period of three years, and a nine-month disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence, was an appropriate sentence.

The reasoning was that while the offence was serious, the unique circumstances warranted a sentence that focused on rehabilitation and deterrence without unduly punishing Ross. The court also took into account the impact on Ross’s family and employment prospects, deeming a custodial sentence unnecessary. The final orders included a wholly suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment with an operational period of three years, and a nine-month disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be wholly suspended, with an operational period of 3 years. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of 9 months.

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.