R v Wickett - [2003] QCA 57

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
R v Wickett [2003] QCA 57

PARTIES:
R
v
WICKETT, Joshua Stephen
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:
CA 359 of 2002
DC 2081 of 2002

DIVISION:
Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:
Sentence application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
20 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane

HEARING DATE:
20 February 2003

JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:
Application refused

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of 4 years – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v McGuire; ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 439; CA No 197 of 2002, 18 October 2002, applied

COUNSEL:
BW Farr for the applicant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Barbi & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 25th of October 2002 in the District Court at Brisbane, by way of ex officio indictment, to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, causing grievous bodily harm, whilst adversely affected by alcohol.

He was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of four years and his driver's licence was absolutely disqualified.
He contends the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The facts of the offence were as follows; at 4.19 p.m. on 26 September 2000, the applicant was driving a car in the underground car park at Southbank Parklands. His front seat passenger, who was a friend, and two other mates, had been drinking at the Plough Inn.

The car park was three quarters full and pedestrians were moving about in it. The applicant reversed his car out of a parking bay and headed in the wrong direction to leave the car park. He was taking corners too quickly. He drove past witnesses on a ramp at excessive speed and his tyres squealed as he took corners. He stopped the car quickly and then revved the engine in three or four short sharp bursts, before taking off extremely quickly, with a squealing of tyres. This caused the car to fish tail. When the applicant attempted to counter steer, the car crashed into a concrete pylon. The applicant's head struck the windscreen.

His passenger, the complainant in this offence, sustained numerous injuries, including a fracture of the lower pole of the left patella, with disruption of the extensor mechanism of the left knee, abrasions to the left forearm and abrasions to the iliac crest. Without treatment, he would have been left with a permanent injury to his left knee. It seems he has now recovered.

The applicant moved his car to a parking bay and…

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 Wickett

Details

AGLC: R v Wickett [2003] QCA 57
Case: [2003] QCA 57
Decision Date: 20 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wickett, appealed against the sentence imposed following their conviction for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm. Wickett was sentenced to a two-and-a-half-year imprisonment term, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of four years. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine if the sentence imposed was disproportionately harsh in light of the crime committed and the sentencing principles applicable in such cases.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the objectives of sentencing, which include deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation. The court considered the severity of the harm caused, the degree of care required by the offender, and the need to protect the community. The court also took into account the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and aligned with the sentencing principles. The court held that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application was refused. The original sentence remained in place, with the two-and-a-half-year imprisonment term suspended after 12 months and an operational period of four years.

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 Wickett [2003] QCA 57
PARTIES:	R v WICKETT, Joshua Stephen (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA 359 of 2002 DC 2081 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	20 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of 4 years – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v McGuire; ex parte A-G [2002] QCA 439; CA No 197 of 2002, 18 October 2002, applied
COUNSEL:	BW Farr for the applicant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Barbi & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent