R v Sheedy; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2007] QCA 183

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sheedy; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 183

PARTIES:

R
v
SHEEDY, Bruce Francis
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 46 of 2007
DC No 22 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside that part of the sentence recording the respondent's date for parole eligibility at 7 August 2008 and instead substituting the date for his parole eligibility at 7 December 2008

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondent had pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death whilst adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, driving while unaccompanied with a learner's permit and failing to display a learner's permit – where the respondent was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months – where the appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate – where mitigating factors for the respondent included remorse, cooperation with authorities, an early guilty plea to an ex-officio indictment and reasonable prospects for rehabilitation – where aggravating features included a concerning traffic history, driving after voluntary ingestion of cannabis whilst unaccompanied with only a learner's permit, the death of two innocent victims and the commission of further offences on bail – whether this warranted such an early date for parole eligibility in addition to a lenient head sentence – whether the sentence was within range

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160C(5)

R v Balic [2005] QCA 212, CA No 57 of 2005, 17 June 2005, considered
R v Hey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 23, CA No 271 of 2005, 10 February 2006, considered
R v Hoad [2005] QCA 92, CA No 434 of 2004, 8 April 2005, distinguished
R v Rahn [1998] QCA 338, CA No 180 of 1998, 6 August 1998, considered
R v Tabakovic [2005] QCA 90, CA No 3 of 2005, 8 April 2005, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
B G Devereaux SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

McMURDO P: The respondent pleaded guilty on 7 February 2007 to an ex-officio indictment charging dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death whilst adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, namely cannabis sativa. He was sentenced to five and half years imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty to two summary offences (driving while unaccompanied with a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Sheedy; ex parte A-G (Qld) 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] QCA 183
Decision Date: 1 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland against the sentence imposed on a respondent who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious charges, including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death while under the influence of an intoxicating substance, driving without a supervising driver while holding only a learner's permit, and failing to display a learner's permit. The respondent was sentenced to a term of five and a half years imprisonment, with parole eligibility set after 18 months. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences and the resulting loss of life.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was excessively lenient and whether the date for parole eligibility was too early, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors. The mitigating factors included the respondent's remorse, cooperation with authorities, early guilty plea, and reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. The aggravating factors comprised the respondent's troubling driving history, voluntary ingestion of cannabis before driving, the death of two innocent people, and commission of further offences while on bail.

The court, in allowing the appeal in part, found that the head sentence of five and a half years imprisonment was within the appropriate range but deemed the date for parole eligibility to be set too soon. The court substituted the date for parole eligibility from 7 August 2008 to 7 December 2008, aligning it more closely with the gravity of the offences committed. This adjustment aimed to ensure that the sentence reflected the serious nature of the crimes and the loss of life, while still considering the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside that part of the sentence recording the respondent's date for parole eligibility at 7 August 2008 and instead substituting the date for his parole eligibility at 7 December 2008

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.

CITATION:	R v Sheedy; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 183
PARTIES:	R v SHEEDY, Bruce Francis (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 46 of 2007 DC No 22 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	1 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside that part of the sentence recording the respondent's date for parole eligibility at 7 August 2008 and instead substituting the date for his parole eligibility at 7 December 2008
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondent had pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death whilst adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, driving while unaccompanied with a learner's permit and failing to display a learner's permit – where the respondent was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months – where the appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate – where mitigating factors for the respondent included remorse, cooperation with authorities, an early guilty plea to an ex-officio indictment and reasonable prospects for rehabilitation – where aggravating features included a concerning traffic history, driving after voluntary ingestion of cannabis whilst unaccompanied with only a learner's permit, the death of two innocent victims and the commission of further offences on bail – whether this warranted such an early date for parole eligibility in addition to a lenient head sentence – whether the sentence was within range Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160C(5) R v Balic [2005] QCA 212, CA No 57 of 2005, 17 June 2005, considered R v Hey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 23, CA No 271 of 2005, 10 February 2006, considered R v Hoad [2005] QCA 92, CA No 434 of 2004, 8 April 2005, distinguished R v Rahn [1998] QCA 338, CA No 180 of 1998, 6 August 1998, considered R v Tabakovic [2005] QCA 90, CA No 3 of 2005, 8 April 2005, distinguished
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant B G Devereaux SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent