R v Smith

Case [2004] QCA 126


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2004] QCA 126

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Geoffrey William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 88 of 2004
DC No 48 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

22 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Jerrard JA and Holmes J concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissenting

ORDER:

The sentence imposed in the District Court on 1 April 2004 be varied to provide that the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years, the operational period to date from 1 April 2004

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by alcohol – where sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment suspended after four months for a period of two years – where applicant appeals on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence is excessive having regard to comparable cases

R v Coake [1999] QCA 12, CA No 403 of 1998, 5 February 1999, considered
R v Collier
[2003] QCA 314, CA No 236 of 2003, 24 July 2003, considered
R v Gehrman [2002] QCA 261, CA No 192 of 2002, 25 July 2002, considered
R v Harch
[2003] QCA 315, CA No 237 of 2003, 24 July 2003, considered
R v Harvey-Sutton [2003] QCA 229, CA No 83 of 2003, 27 May 2003, considered
R v Parker [2003] QCA 316, CA No 139 of 2003, 24 July 2003, considered
R v Simpson [2001] QCA 109, CA NO 309 of 2000, 21 March 2001, considered

COUNSEL:

I A Entriken for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Clewett Corser & Drummond for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The applicant pleaded guilty on an ex officio indictment in the District Court to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by alcohol.

An hour after ceasing driving his blood alcohol concentration was .182.  In the context of a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment suspended after four months for a period of two years and he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for two and a half years.  He seeks leave to appeal on the ground the penalty is manifestly excessive.

At the time of the offence, which was committed on the 22nd of August 2003, the applicant was 54 years of age.  He is an avionics technician with a good employment…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2004] QCA 126
Case
[2004] QCA 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involved an appeal against the sentence handed down in the District Court, where the applicant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by alcohol. The applicant was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended after four months, for a period of two years. The applicant subsequently appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider whether the sentence was excessive in light of comparable cases.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence with the sentencing principles outlined in relevant case law and statutes. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court examined comparable cases to assess whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate. It found that the sentences in similar cases were generally less severe, often involving fines or shorter periods of imprisonment. The court also considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the applicant's background and the impact of the offence. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the original sentence was indeed excessive.

Accordingly, the court varied the sentence to provide that the 15 months’ imprisonment be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years, the operational period to date from 1 April 2004. This decision was based on the court's finding that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and did not align with the principles of proportionality and sentencing in similar cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The sentence imposed in the District Court on 1 April 2004 be varied to provide that the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years, the operational period to date from 1 April 2004

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.