R v Slater

Case [1997] QCA 42


[1997] QCA 042

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ McPHERSON JA BYRNE J

CA No 518 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

SHAUN JEROME SLATER Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 26/2/97
260297 T19/VT26 M/T COA29/97
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: On this appeal against sentence on the
ground of its being manifestly excessive, we see that the
sentencing District Court Judge imposed one sentence only which
was a term of imprisonment of seven years, imposed, as the Judge
said, on count 3. He disqualified the applicant from holding or
obtaining a driver's licence and declined to make any
recommendation for parole.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to each of three counts of an indictment alleging separate offences occurring on the same day, 24 August 1996, on the Bruce Highway in the vicinity of Farleigh, Mackay and Kuttabul. Actually, it appears that the conduct in question which gave rise to the three counts was some relatively continuous piece of driving by the applicant.

The first two counts were of dangerous driving with the circumstance of aggravation that the applicant was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, namely liquor and the third and most serious of the counts was dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm to a woman driver on the highway at a time when the applicant had a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 150 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The maximum penalty for each of the first two offences had penalties been imposed was a five years term of imprisonment and for the third more serious one it was 14 years.

What the Judge said in the course of his sentencing remarks that he was proposing to do was this. He said he proposed to impose one sentence for all three offences and the sentence would be imposed specifically in respect of count 3 but it would take 260297 T19/VT26 M/T COA29/97

into account the totality of the applicant's driving - that is, the driving in each of the three separate counts. It does not seem that it would have been reasonably open to object to the Judge taking into account the totality of the driving and the offences committed in the course of it in imposing his sentences but there does not appear to have been any justification for his failing to impose sentences - any sentences at all, that is - on the first two counts.

Of course, the one specifically imposed on the count with which we have become directly concerned - that is, a sentence of seven years - would have exceeded the maximum which could have been imposed on the first two counts had the Judge purported to make it referable to them. However, there is no effective challenge to the apparent irregularity in all of this and we are left with the task of considering whether the sentence imposed on count 3 was excessive taking into account the totality of the criminal conduct.

The applicant had an extremely bad criminal history and it included a very…

Continue reading R v Slater

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Slater [1997] QCA 42
Case
[1997] QCA 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slater involved an appeal against sentence by Shaun Jerome Slater, who was convicted of dangerous driving and causing grievous bodily harm while under the influence of alcohol. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the sentence of seven years' imprisonment imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. The applicant had pleaded guilty to three counts of dangerous driving, two of which involved aggravating circumstances of being adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, and the third count involved causing grievous bodily harm to another driver. The District Court Judge imposed a single sentence of seven years, specifically on the third count, and disqualified Slater from holding or obtaining a driver's license.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court Judge erred in imposing a single sentence for all three counts and whether the sentence was excessive. The Court noted that while it may have been open to the Judge to consider the totality of the applicant's driving in imposing sentence, there was no justification for failing to impose separate sentences on the first two counts. Despite this, the Court found that the sentence imposed on the third count, considering the totality of Slater's criminal conduct, was not excessive.

The Court of Appeal considered Slater's extensive criminal history, which included numerous offenses related to drink/driving and driving while disqualified. The Court also reviewed the details of the offenses, which involved dangerous driving on the Bruce Highway, resulting in a head-on collision with another vehicle, causing severe injuries to the other driver. The Court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given Slater's criminal history and the severity of the injuries caused to the victim.

The Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that the sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and refused the application. The judges agreed that the sentence was justified in light of Slater's persistent contempt for court orders, the seriousness of his criminal conduct, and the injuries caused to the victim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.