R v Turner
Case
•
[2024] QCA 172
•17 September 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Turner [2024] QCA 172
[2024] QCA 172
17 September 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Turner, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge following his conviction for dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death. The applicant, who was on parole for serious drug offences at the time of the incident, was driving under the influence of methylamphetamine and at an excessive speed when the accident occurred. The sentencing judge, recognising the gravity of the offence and the applicant's prior criminal history, imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, which was deemed to be served cumulatively with the previous sentence due to the offence occurring while the applicant was on parole. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately account for the undeclared period of pre-sentence custody served by the applicant.
The legal issues in this case revolved around the correctness of the sentence imposed and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's undeclared pre-sentence custody and the plea of guilty. The applicant argued that the combined effect of these factors warranted a lesser sentence. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge erred in not properly accounting for the undeclared pre-sentence custody.
The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offence and the applicant's criminal history. The court also determined that the sentencing judge did not err in failing to account for the undeclared pre-sentence custody since the applicant had not formally declared it. However, the court acknowledged that the sentencing judge should have made a declaration under section 159A(3B) of the Penalties and Sentences Act, recognising the period of undeclared pre-sentence custody. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal, varied the orders to include a declaration of the undeclared pre-sentence custody, and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
The legal issues in this case revolved around the correctness of the sentence imposed and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's undeclared pre-sentence custody and the plea of guilty. The applicant argued that the combined effect of these factors warranted a lesser sentence. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge erred in not properly accounting for the undeclared pre-sentence custody.
The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offence and the applicant's criminal history. The court also determined that the sentencing judge did not err in failing to account for the undeclared pre-sentence custody since the applicant had not formally declared it. However, the court acknowledged that the sentencing judge should have made a declaration under section 159A(3B) of the Penalties and Sentences Act, recognising the period of undeclared pre-sentence custody. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal, varied the orders to include a declaration of the undeclared pre-sentence custody, and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Breach of Parole
-
Danger to Public
-
Excessive Speeding
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Turner [2024] QCA 172
Most Recent Citation
R v Mei [2024] QCA 223
Cases Citing This Decision
4
CDL v Commissioner of Police
[2024] QCA 245
R v Mei
[2024] QCA 223
CDL v Commissioner of Police
[2024] QCA 245
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
3
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2016] FCA 413
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2016] FCA 413
R v Watson
[2021] QCA 225