The Queen –v- CAREY - [2004] QDC 314

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	The Queen –v- CAREY [2004] QDC 314
PARTIES:	The Queen v David Charles CAREY
FILE NO:	133 / 2003
PROCEEDINGS:	Sentence following trial
DELIVERED ON:	10 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Mackay
HEARING DATES:	7 & 8 September 2004
JUDGE:	CF Wall QC
ORDER:	Conviction Recorded. Imprisonment for 12 months wholly suspended for 2 years. 100 hours community service. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 12 months.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm – driver fatigue – driver fell asleep causing vehicle to veer off the road – injury to passenger – no speed or alcohol - relevant considerations to sentencing. Case referred to: Wood v R [2002] WASCA 95 (DIS)
COUNSEL:	Mr A. Edwards for the Crown Mr C. Bagley for the Accused
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Taylors Solicitors for the Accused

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE C.F. WALL QC

THE QUEEN

DAVID CHARLES CAREY

MACKAY

..DATE 10/09/2004

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: David Charles Carey, this is a serious offence that the jury have convicted you of. During the adjournment I have read the decision of the Western Australia Court of Criminal Appeal in the matter of Wood. There are certain distinguishing features between that case and yours. That was a case dangerous driving causing death where no defence under section 24 of the Criminal Code arose. A sentence of imprisonment for 18 months was imposed in that case, and by a majority, was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The offence is very serious and it has had serious, and apparently lasting, consequences for Mr Marshall. Details of his initial treatment are contained in the report of Dr Olsen and I need not repeat those details here.

Objectively, you displayed disregard for the safety of other road users and, in particular, your passenger, and to that extent it could be said you acted with some degree of recklessness. I do not think, unlike the situation in the case of Wood, that it was so much a selfish disregard as you did stop when you felt fatigued, and you did attempt to refresh yourself at the top of the Sarina Range, and you did, I am satisfied, honestly believe that it was safe for you to proceed.

Now, knowingly driving in a state of real fatigue, which is the finding of the jury, is behaviour which does increase the seriousness with which an offence of dangerous driving caused by that fatigue is regarded by Courts. There was a warning to you as to the onset of sleep that caused you to stop at the top of the range. That provides evidence of the degree of tiredness that you were suffering from. The jury's verdict is that you were so tired that in the circumstances your driving, your continued driving, was a danger to the public.

The maximum sentence for this offence is imprisonment for seven years. The maximum sentence in the…

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 The Queen –v- CAREY

Details

AGLC: The Queen –v- CAREY [2004] QDC 314
Case: [2004] QDC 314
Decision Date: 10 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen versus Carey, the defendant was charged with dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred when the defendant, while driving, fell asleep at the wheel and caused the vehicle to veer off the road, resulting in injury to the passenger. The case was heard and determined in a relevant court. The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were the appropriate sentencing considerations for dangerous driving that resulted in grievous bodily harm, particularly in the context of driver fatigue. The court had to weigh various factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances leading to the incident, and the impact on the victim. It examined the defendant's lack of speed and alcohol involvement but emphasised the seriousness of driver fatigue as a contributing factor. The court also took into account the defendant's criminal history, remorse, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that a sentence involving imprisonment, community service, and disqualification from driving was appropriate to address the offence's severity and to ensure public safety.

The court ordered the conviction to be recorded and sentenced the defendant to 12 months imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for two years. The defendant was also required to complete 100 hours of community service and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 12 months. This decision underscores the court's approach to addressing dangerous driving caused by driver fatigue and the importance of considering the broader implications of such offences on public safety and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Conviction Recorded. Imprisonment for 12 months wholly suspended for 2 years. 100 hours community service. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 12 months.

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.