R v Tapau
[1999] QCA 8
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v Tapau[1999] QCA 8
- Add to List
R v Tapau[1999] QCA 8
R v Tapau[1999] QCA 8
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
THOMAS JA
MACKENZIE J
CA No 407 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.
MICHAEL GREGORY TAPAU
BRISBANE
DATE 04/02/99
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will ask Mr Justice Thomas to deliver the first judgment in this matter.
THOMAS JA: The applicant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death. He seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after six months and a disqualification from holding a driver's licence for two years.
He was 26 years old at the time of the offence and has no criminal history. He has, however, a traffic record which contains entries of speeding, driving under the influence and unlicensed driving.
On the occasion in question, he was driving his vehicle along Cherbourg Road along a sealed surface with one lane travelling in each direction divided by a single centre lane. He elected to overtake a number of vehicles when it was obviously unsafe to do so. One of the vehicles was forced to swerve off to the left on to the grass shoulder where it struck a guide-post. He drove his own vehicle off the road to the right because there was oncoming traffic. In the course of doing this, he struck a tree and the back-seat passenger in his vehicle was killed.
The learned sentencing Judge characterised the applicant's conduct as reckless inattention but in my view it went beyond inattention. His Honour relatively adverted to the traffic history and also to the favourable aspects including the lack of criminal history, good work history, a pregnant wife, three children and an early plea of guilty.
In my view, the head sentence of 18 months imprisonment is within the appropriate range of offences of this kind and the recommendation for earlier consideration of parole places the actual sentence well within the limits of the proper sentencing discretion.
I do not think it necessary to canvass other previous decisions of this Court which uphold sentences of this order and, indeed, greater sentences. The applicant appeared in person and did not suggest any particular grievance in relation to the sentence.
In these circumstances, I would refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.
MACKENZIE J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.