Riley v Doyle and Grimsey - [1997] QCA 112

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 112
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No.15 of 1997 C.A. No.16 of 1997
[Riley v. Doyle & Grimsey]

E.L. RILEY

CONRAD ALFRED DOYLE
STEVEN WILLIAM GRIMSEY

Appellants

Fitzgerald P.
McPherson JA.

Mackenzie J.

Judgment delivered 9 May 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY GRIMSEY REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - driving offences - dangerous

driving in the course of a series of overtakings.

APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - interference with Judge's findings of fact - whether court can set aside Magistrate's findings on appellant's credibility - inconsistencies between witnesses' evidence on both sides and the physical location of damage, between evidence of the defence witnesses, internally and as against each other, and between statements to police and evidence given by appellants in court.

Counsel:	D. Dimitrou (by leave) for the appellants. M. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent.
Solicitors:	D. Dimitrou (by leave) for the appellants. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.

Hearing date:21 April 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment Delivered 9 May 1997

Each of the appellants was convicted by a Magistrate of dangerous driving. Each has appealed against conviction and Grimsey has also appealed against sentence. Although the appeal against sentence was not abandoned it was not pressed because the appellant had served about 4 months of the 6 months sentence and had been released from actual custody by the time of the hearing of the appeal.

The charges arose out of an incident on Pine Mountain Road, Pine Mountain. The road was a 2 lane carriageway with gravel shoulders at the relevant location. The Magistrate heard irreconcilable accounts of the incident from the prosecution and the defence.

The prosecution version was given principally by Wayne Robert Cook, who was driving an orange Datsun sedan and his sister Paula Fay Cook who was a passenger in it. Occupants of the other vehicles gave evidence for the defence. The appellant Conrad Doyle was the driver of a bronze Holden sedan in which his brothers Rodney Doyle and Joe Doyle were passengers. The appellant Steven Grimsey was the driver of a blue Toyota utility with a tray with a metal strip along the edge. Karen Doyle, the appellant Doyle's sister, was a passenger in Grimsey's vehicle. She was in a relationship with Grimsey at the time of the incident but it had ceased by the time of trial before the Magistrate. All of the persons named except Joe Doyle gave evidence before the Magistrate.

The prosecution version was that while the Datsun was proceeding along Pine Mountain Road the Holden came close behind it, swerving within the lane in which it was travelling. It came out to overtake and when it did so there was a noise as if something had hit a vehicle, but no collision. However when the Holden began to come back to the correct side of the road its rear…

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 Riley v Doyle and Grimsey 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: [1997] QCA 112
Decision Date: 9/05/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley v Doyle and Grimsey involved the appellants, Conrad Alfred Doyle and Steven William Grimsey, appealing against their convictions for dangerous driving and, in Grimsey's case, against his sentence. The convictions arose from an incident on Pine Mountain Road, where both appellants were involved in a series of overtaking manoeuvres that resulted in dangerous driving charges. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the credibility of the witnesses and whether the Magistrate's findings on this matter were properly made. The prosecution presented a version of events where the appellants' vehicles were involved in dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, causing the occupants of another vehicle to fear for their safety. The defence, however, provided a differing account of events, which included claims that the other vehicle had swerved into appellant Doyle's car and later into Grimsey's vehicle. The discrepancies in the evidence, both between the witnesses and within their own testimonies, were central to the appeal.

The court examined the Magistrate's assessment of the witnesses' credibility and the reasoning behind his findings. The Magistrate noted inconsistencies in the defence witnesses' accounts and highlighted discrepancies between their statements to the police and their testimonies in court. The court found that the Magistrate had properly considered the evidence and the relevant factors affecting credibility. The court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the Magistrate's decision, as it was not affected by any flaws that would warrant setting aside his findings. Consequently, the appeals against conviction were dismissed. Regarding Grimsey's appeal against sentence, the court determined that the sentence of six months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offence and Grimsey's prior traffic record. Therefore, Grimsey's application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals against conviction by both appellants be dismissed and that Grimsey's application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders