R v Vessey; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [1996] QCA 11

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 011
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No.453 of 1995
[R. v. Vessey]

THE QUEEN

RONALD JAMES VESSEY Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant
Fitzgerald P. Davies J.A. Mackenzie J.

Judgment delivered 16/2/1996
Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE ALLOWED. THE SENTENCE OF 6 AND A HALF YEARS WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PAROLE AFTER 26 MONTHS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND A SENTENCE OF 9 YEARS IMPRISONMENT WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE RESPONDENT BE CONSIDERED FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE AFTER 4 YEARS SHOULD BE IMPOSED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Attorney-General appeal -Dangerous Driving Causing Death - Respondent severely intoxicated -History of DUI offences - History of licence disqualifications - disqualified at time of offence - 6½ years imprisonment with recommendation for parole after 26 months - whether manifestly inadequate.

Counsel:	Mr M. Byrne for the appellant Mr S. Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the appellant Legal Aid Office for the respondent
Hearing date:	31 January 1996

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 16 February 1996

The applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. He was sentenced to 6 and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be considered for parole after 26 months. The Attorney-General has appealed against this sentence on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate.

The offence had very serious features. The applicant was under the influence of alcohol at the time. A sample of urine taken one and a half hours after the collision demonstrated that at the time the sample was taken the applicant had at least a concentration of .2 per cent alcohol in his blood.

The vehicle driven by the applicant had been observed making a U-turn sometime before the collision and was observed to travel on the wrong side of the road for about 150 metres causing another vehicle to take evasive action. After it turned a corner into the street where the fatal collision occurred the left-hand indicator remained on, the vehicle was driven to the intersection where the collision occurred and, without any sign that the brakes had been applied, was driven through a "give way" sign colliding with the victim's vehicle in the middle of the driver's side and overturning it. It was not suggested that the speed of the appellant's vehicle had of itself been excessive prior to the collision. The victim was a well respected school teacher whose death after several days on a life support system caused significant distress to his parents and the community of the school at which he taught.

A further aggravating aspect of the applicant's conduct is that he has a bad history of driving under the influence of liquor with high blood alcohol concentrations. On each occasion he was disqualified from driving (including 2 absolute disqualifications). He was disqualified for a period of 15 months as a result of the last of these offences at the time of the offence. On two…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Vessey; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1996] QCA 11
Decision Date: 16/02/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vessey; ex parte A-G (Qld), the appellant, the Attorney-General of Queensland, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Ronald James Vessey, who had been convicted of dangerous driving causing death. Vessey had been sentenced to 6½ years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole consideration after 26 months. The Attorney-General contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in light of the severity of the offence and Vessey's history of driving under the influence of alcohol, which included multiple prior convictions and disqualifications from driving. The court had to consider whether the sentence adequately reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to deter Vessey and others from engaging in similar conduct.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in giving undue weight to a perceived range of sentences for serious cases of dangerous driving causing death. The court emphasised the need for judges to impose sentences appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case, rather than being constrained by past sentences or a perceived range of sentences for a particular offence. The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the seriousness of Vessey's conduct and his history of prior offences. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 6½ years was set aside, replaced with a sentence of 9 years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole consideration after 4 years.

Orders