R v Scanlan - [2023] QCA 206

[2023] QCA 206

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P
MORRISON JA
MARTIN SJA

CA No 60 of 2023
DC No 41 of 2023

THE KING

SCANLAN, Gregory Michael Applicant

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2023

JUDGMENT

MARTIN SJA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against an order that he be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of three years from 16 March 2023. The only ground advanced is that the period of disqualification is manifestly excessive.

On 11 November 2018, a Sunday, the applicant left his house in Bulimba at about 2 pm. He was going to the local supermarket to pick up some groceries for a party being held at his house. What he did soon after leaving his house was described by the learned sentencing judge in this way:

“[Y]ou turned from your street into Henderson Street and opened the throttle to the maximum extent with the result that driving along that suburban street where the speed limit was 50 kilometres per hour, you were doing in excess of 150 kilometres per hour.”

His Honour found that the applicant then went around a 90-degree left-hand corner into the next street and was, at least to some degree, in excess of the speed limit. Soon after that, the applicant’s vehicle collided with another vehicle, and, as a result, the occupants of that vehicle were severely injured.

The applicant was not charged with any offence with respect to the collision but was charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle. He pleaded guilty to that charge and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 18 months, with immediate suspension of that sentence and an operative period of two years. That sentence is not contested. Unless another order had been made, the applicant would, by reason of the conviction, have been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for six months pursuant to s 86 of the Transport Operations (Road User Management) Act 1995.

The disqualification of the applicant’s licence, the subject of this application, was made pursuant to s 187 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. That section relevantly provides:

“187Disqualification from holding Queensland driver licence
(1)If—
(a) an offender is convicted of an offence in connection with or arising out of the operation, or the interference in any way with the operation, of a motor vehicle by the offender; and
(b) the court by or before which the offender is convicted is satisfied having regard to the nature of the offence, or to the circumstances in which it was committed, that the offender should, in the interests of justice, be disqualified from holding or obtaining a Queensland driver licence;
the court may, in addition to any sentence that it may impose, order that the offender is, from the time of the conviction, disqualified absolutely, or for such period as is ordered by the court, from holding or obtaining a Queensland driver licence.
(2)Subsection (1) applies whether or not a conviction is…

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 Scanlan

Details

AGLC: R v Scanlan [2023] QCA 206
Case: [2023] QCA 206
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Scanlan, the applicant, Gregory Michael Scanlan, sought leave to appeal against an order disqualifying him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of three years, beginning 16 March 2023. The applicant’s ground for appeal was that the disqualification period was manifestly excessive. On 11 November 2018, Scanlan was involved in a dangerous driving incident where he was travelling at excessive speeds, leading to a collision that severely injured the occupants of another vehicle. Although no charges were brought in relation to the collision, Scanlan pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a vehicle and was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, suspended after two years. The disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence was made under s 187 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

The legal issues addressed by the court involved the appropriate duration of the disqualification period, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the sentencing objectives including protection of the public, rehabilitation, deterrence, denunciation, and community protection. The court referenced previous decisions such as R v Osborne, where it was noted that the disqualification period should serve a purpose beyond merely augmenting other penalties. The court also examined Scanlan's extensive history of traffic offences and his current employment situation, which required him to travel.

The court found that the sentencing judge appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the disqualification period. The judge acknowledged Scanlan's extensive history of traffic offences, indicating a need to protect the public, and considered the potential impact on his employment. The judge also noted that Scanlan had demonstrated some insight and was taking steps to address his driving behaviour. However, the judge found that a significant disqualification period was necessary given Scanlan’s history and the nature of the offence. The court concluded that the sentencing judge's decision was not influenced by irrelevant matters and that the duration of the disqualification period was within the broad discretion afforded by the legislation.

The order of the Court was to refuse the application for leave to appeal, and the court adjourned.

Orders