R v Wakefield - [2008] QCA 269

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wakefield [2008] QCA 269

PARTIES:

R
v
WAKEFIELD, Timothy Richard
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 56 of 2008
DC No 575 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2008

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Philippides and Daubney JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application refused

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 REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant convicted on a guilty plea to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – applicant sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with parole release date fixed after 15 months – whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient regard to matters of rehabilitation and mitigation – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A(4)

R v Conquest; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1995] QCA 567, cited
R v D’Arrigo; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 399, cited
R v Hardes[2003] QCA 47, cited
R v McGuigan[2004] QCA 381, cited
R v Vance; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 269, cited

R v Wilde; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501, cited

COUNSEL:

M Anderson for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Smith & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons of Philippides J and with the order proposed by her Honour.

PHILIPPIDES J: On 5 February 2008, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with a fixed parole release date of 5 May 2009. The applicant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for three years.

The applicant, who was 27 at the time of the offence and is now 30, being born on 13 June 1978, appeals against the sentence imposed on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offence are that on 18 December 2005 the applicant was driving his vehicle in Avocado Street, Elanora, when he passed a group of people who were by the side of the road. The applicant continued a short distance past the group, performed a U-turn and drove back towards the group. It appears that the applicant believed that a bottle had been thrown at the vehicle. In an attempt to scare those in the group, he deliberately swerved towards them. The complainant, who had his back turned toward the vehicle, was struck by the vehicle and sustained serious injuries. The applicant drove away and continued to drive a distance of some kilometres. He then stopped the vehicle…

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.

Continue reading R v Wakefield

Details

AGLC: R v Wakefield [2008] QCA 269
Case: [2008] QCA 269
Decision Date: 5 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Wakefield, appealed against his sentence after being convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. Wakefield had entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility set after 15 months. The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered factors related to rehabilitation and mitigation, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing judge's consideration of rehabilitation and mitigation. It assessed if the judge had sufficiently addressed the potential for Wakefield's rehabilitation and whether the sentence reflected these considerations. The court also considered whether the sentence was disproportionately severe given the circumstances of the offence and Wakefield's personal background. After a thorough analysis, the court found that the sentencing judge had adequately weighed the relevant factors, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Based on the review, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered rehabilitation and mitigation. Consequently, the court dismissed Wakefield's appeal and refused the application to reduce his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.

CITATION:	R v Wakefield [2008] QCA 269
PARTIES:	R v WAKEFIELD, Timothy Richard (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 56 of 2008 DC No 575 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 May 2008
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, Philippides and Daubney JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application refused
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 REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant convicted on a guilty plea to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – applicant sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with parole release date fixed after 15 months – whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient regard to matters of rehabilitation and mitigation – whether sentence manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A(4) R v Conquest; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1995] QCA 567, cited R v D’Arrigo; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 399, cited R v Hardes[2003] QCA 47, cited R v McGuigan[2004] QCA 381, cited R v Vance; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] QCA 269, cited R v Wilde; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 501, cited
COUNSEL:	M Anderson for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Smith & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent