R v Wales - [2002] QCA 463

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wales [2002] QCA 463

PARTIES:

R
v
WALES, Shane David
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 254 of 2002
DC No 321 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

31 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused. A warrant issue for the arrest of the applicant, to lie in the Registry for 7 days prior to any necessary execution.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where sentence of 16 months imprisonment suspended after 4 months for an operational period of 16 months imposed – where application for leave to appeal against sentence seeking a wholly suspended term of imprisonment – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – where applicant failed to stop at red light and collided with the complainant’s car causing serious injuries to the complainant – where applicant’s conduct characterised as going beyond mere inattention – where applicant was driving a heavily laden truck over the speed limit and consciously attempted to beat the yellow light – where sentence was within the range

R v Hamilton [2000] QCA 286; CA No 75 of 2000, considered
R v Manahan [2000] QCA 382; CA No 207 of 2000, considered

COUNSEL:

G Lynham for the applicant
PD Kelly for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS J: The applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced on 15 August 2002 to 16 months imprisonment suspended after four months for an operational period of 16 months. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 18 months. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence seeking a wholly suspended term of imprisonment. He has been on bail pending appeal.

At 4.50 p.m. on Friday, 6 April 2001 when visibility and road conditions were good, the applicant was driving his work truck along Hugh Street in Pimlico Townsville approaching the intersection with Palmerston Street which was controlled by traffic lights.

He saw the amber light and decided to "push the orange light". When he was about 15 to 20 metres from the intersection he saw the traffic from Palmerston Street begin to move forward. He hit the brakes and tried to veer right but collided with the middle of the driver's side door of the complainant's sedan…

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 Wales

Details

AGLC: R v Wales [2002] QCA 463
Case: [2002] QCA 463
Decision Date: 31 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wales, the applicant appealed against his sentence following a conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. The sentencing court had imposed a term of imprisonment of 16 months, suspended after a period of 4 months, for an operational period of 16 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, and sought a wholly suspended term of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing court was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and whether the sentence fell within the appropriate range of penalties for the offence. The court needed to assess whether the applicant's conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant a custodial sentence, or whether a wholly suspended sentence would be more appropriate.

The court held that the applicant's conduct was more than mere inattention, as he was driving a heavily laden truck over the speed limit and consciously attempted to beat the yellow light. The court found that the applicant's actions had caused serious injuries to the complainant, and that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and dismissed his application for leave to appeal. The court also issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant, to lie in the Registry for 7 days prior to any necessary execution.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence and issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest. The warrant is to lie in the Registry for 7 days prior to any necessary execution.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused. A warrant issue for the arrest of the applicant, to lie in the Registry for 7 days prior to any necessary execution.

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 Wales [2002] QCA 463
PARTIES:	R v WALES, Shane David (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 254 of 2002 DC No 321 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	31 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 October 2002
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused. A warrant issue for the arrest of the applicant, to lie in the Registry for 7 days prior to any necessary execution.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where sentence of 16 months imprisonment suspended after 4 months for an operational period of 16 months imposed – where application for leave to appeal against sentence seeking a wholly suspended term of imprisonment – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – where applicant failed to stop at red light and collided with the complainant’s car causing serious injuries to the complainant – where applicant’s conduct characterised as going beyond mere inattention – where applicant was driving a heavily laden truck over the speed limit and consciously attempted to beat the yellow light – where sentence was within the range R v Hamilton [2000] QCA 286; CA No 75 of 2000, considered R v Manahan [2000] QCA 382; CA No 207 of 2000, considered
COUNSEL:	G Lynham for the applicant PD Kelly for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent