R v Simpson - [2003] QCA 100

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simpson [2003] QCA 100

PARTIES:

R
v
SIMPSON, Paul Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 344 of 2002
DC No 2259 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2003

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1. Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence
2. Allow the appeal to the extent of substituting for the sentence imposed at first instance a sentence of four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm whilst adversely affected by liquor – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for post prison community based release after 22 months – where applicant disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years – where applicant did not have prior convictions for driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug – where applicant assisted victim in rehabilitation - whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Breckenridge [2001] QCA 448; CA No 194 of 2001, 16 October 2001, distinguished
R v Haydon [1996] QCA 503; CA No 396 of 1996, 13 November 1996, distinguished

R v King; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1996] QCA 78; CA No 516 of 1995, 20 March 1996, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The applicant pleaded guilty on 25 September 2002 to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm whilst adversely affected by liquor. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for post prison community based release after 22 months and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for five years. He was also dealt with for breach of a suspended sentence imposed in the District Court on 26 July 1999 and was ordered to serve the three months suspended sentence concurrently. He contends the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The maximum penalty was 14 years imprisonment.

The applicant was 25 at the time he committed the offence and 26 at sentence. He has a significant criminal history with a steady stream of appearances for relatively minor offences. He was dealt with for drug offences and offences relating to railways and wilful destruction in 1994 and 1995. Of more concern, he was placed on probation for three years in 1995 for assault with intent to steal in company. He was fined for…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2003] QCA 100
Case: [2003] QCA 100
Decision Date: 14 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Simpson appealed against his sentence imposed after pleading guilty to dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm whilst adversely affected by liquor. The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for post prison community based release after 22 months. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years. The applicant, who did not have prior convictions for driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug, had assisted the victim in her rehabilitation. The appeal was brought on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The primary issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character and antecedents of the applicant, and the impact of the offence on the victim. In evaluating the sentence, the court also considered the applicant’s remorse, his efforts to assist the victim in her rehabilitation, and his prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant’s lack of prior convictions, his remorse, his efforts to assist the victim, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the applicant. The court substituted the sentence imposed by the lower court with a sentence of four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months. The court also noted that the applicant had already been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years, which was an appropriate and sufficient penalty for his offence.

The court granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting for the sentence imposed at first instance a sentence of four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence

2. Allow the appeal to the extent of substituting for the sentence imposed at first instance a sentence of four years imprisonment suspended after 18 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.

CITATION:	R v Simpson [2003] QCA 100
PARTIES:	R v SIMPSON, Paul Michael (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 344 of 2002 DC No 2259 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence 2. Allow the appeal to the extent of substituting for the sentence imposed at first instance a sentence of four years imprisonment suspended after 18 months
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm whilst adversely affected by liquor – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for post prison community based release after 22 months – where applicant disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years – where applicant did not have prior convictions for driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug – where applicant assisted victim in rehabilitation - whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances R v Breckenridge [2001] QCA 448; CA No 194 of 2001, 16 October 2001, distinguished R v Haydon [1996] QCA 503; CA No 396 of 1996, 13 November 1996, distinguished R v King; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1996] QCA 78; CA No 516 of 1995, 20 March 1996, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent