SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Stephenson [1999] QCA 519 PARTIES: R
v
STEPHENSON, Keith Andrew
(Applicant/Appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 295 of 1999
DC No 30 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal
against sentenceORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Bundaberg DELIVERED ON: 17 December 1999 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 3 November 1999, 13 December 1999 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Williams and Atkinson JJ
Judgment of the CourtORDER: Appeal dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against
sentence refused.CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where appellant driving motorcycle involved in an accident killing the pillion passenger – where appellant affected by alcohol – appellant appealed against conviction and sentence – where strong Crown case. CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRIVING OFFENCES – CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM – PROOF AND EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where evidence of expert as to incident excluded – where expert evidence based on many variables – where appellant made admissions which were disputed at trial – whether expert evidence rightly excluded. COUNSEL: The Applicant/Appellant appeared on his own behalf
Mrs L Clare for the respondentSOLICITORS: The Applicant/Appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
THE COURT: On 21 July 1999, the appellant, Keith Andrew Stephenson, was convicted after a trial in the District Court in Bundaberg on one count of dangerous operation of a motorcycle causing death with a circumstance of aggravation that he was affected by an intoxicating substance, namely alcohol, and that his blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0.15 per cent.
The circumstances of the offence were that at about 3 am on 14 March 1998, the appellant left a nightclub in Bundaberg with the deceased, Eugeniusz Stefan Koczan. They had been drinking in various hotels and clubs around Bundaberg that evening. Their transport for the evening was a 750cc motorcycle ridden by the appellant. The deceased rode pillion.
After the motorcycle ridden by the appellant left the nightclub it ran through two red lights as it proceeded towards the Burnett traffic bridge which is an iron bridge crossing the Burnett River in Bundaberg. The iron bridge is about 490 metres in length and there is a sharp left turn at the northern end of the bridge. The motorcycle did not take the turn and both riders were thrown off it. The appellant suffered a broken leg and the pillion rider later died from his injuries.
This is a matter in which there was a very strong Crown case, both because of admissions made by the appellant and because of the objective evidence. The appellant had a blood alcohol level of 0.157 per cent as well as 0.005 milligrams per kilogram of the drug alprazolam, which is the pharmacological name for the tranquilliser sold as xanax. Both…
Continue reading R v Stephenson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Stephenson [1999] QCA 519
- Case
- [1999] QCA 519
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence should be upheld. The court had to determine whether the lower court erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly concerning the appellant's intoxication and the causation of the accident. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the severity of the sentence in light of the circumstances of the case and relevant legal principles.
The court, in dismissing the appeal and denying the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, found that the evidence strongly supported the appellant's conviction. The court emphasised the significant role of alcohol in the accident and acknowledged the compelling nature of the Crown's case. The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's culpability. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against
sentence refused.
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.