R v Antoney
[2000] QCA 180
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 Antoney[2000] QCA 180
- Add to List
R v Antoney[2000] QCA 180
R v Antoney[2000] QCA 180
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
McMURDO P
DUTNEY J
CA No 402 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.
MARK RONALD ANTONEYApplicant
ROCKHAMPTON
DATE 16/05/2000
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant pleaded guilty to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing the death of his passenger, while his, the applicant’s, blood alcohol concentration exceeded 150 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a recommendation that he be considered for parole after 15 months.
He has filed a notice of appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence. His specified grounds relate only to conviction and he has indicated, if equivocally to us here this morning, that he was not proceeding with the application in relation to sentence.
Because of that degree of equivocation, and notwithstanding the absence of any submissions in relation to sentence, I should briefly say why on no view could the sentence imposed be said to be manifestly excessive.
The applicant drove through a stop sign at a railway crossing. He was aware of it. His vehicle collided with a train. His 25-year old passenger was killed. Two hours after the collision the applicant’s blood alcohol concentration was .174. He conceded to the police that he had been drinking mid-strength beer from midday. The collision occurred at 5.40 p.m.. The maximum penalty was 14 years’ imprisonment.
The applicant had two previous convictions for drink driving five years earlier. He had also previously been sentenced to a suspended term of two years’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed could not seriously be considered manifestly excessive, or indeed at all excessive, and if support be needed for that, Rowley, Court of Appeal 240 of 1998 provides sufficient.
The ground of appeal against conviction challenged the establishment of the circumstance of aggravation. The appellant contends in the notice of appeal that he was not given a vial of his blood for self-testing, that testing should have occurred in Brisbane, and that his behaviour afterwards did not suggest intoxication.
Those assertions aside, the fact is that he pleaded guilty voluntarily to the aggravated offence. He was represented by counsel. He admitted to the police, having been drinking over a substantial earlier period, and he is burdened with the conclusive effect of the analyst’s certificate under section 16A of the Traffic Act, that certificate having been tendered without challenge. Further, the very point now raised by the appellant that his subsequent treatment and behaviour were inconsistent with his having been so intoxicated was apparently actively considered prior to his pleading guilty to the offence including the circumstance of aggravation. See the record at page 8 line 20 and thereabouts.
It could not possibly be contended that there is here any real suggestion of a miscarriage of justice such as would warrant vacating the plea of guilty. The appeal should be dismissed and the application should be refused.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
DUTNEY J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Those are the orders.