R v Parker
[2003] QCA 316
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 Parker[2003] QCA 316
- Add to List
R v Parker[2003] QCA 316
R v Parker[2003] QCA 316
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 24 July 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 24 July 2003 |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, Mackenzie and Helman JJ |
ORDER: | Application refused |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of dangerous driving with circumstance of aggravation – where sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after 6 months for 2 years – where applicant claimed sentence was manifestly excessive – whether excessive having regard to comparable cases |
COUNSEL: | R Frigo for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant |
MACKENZIE J: The applicant who was 27 at the time of the offence pleaded guilty to an offence of dangerous driving with the circumstance of aggravation that he was adversely affected by alcohol at the time. His blood alcohol concentration was 0.219.
He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after six months for two years. He had no relevant criminal convictions although he did have a short criminal history for unrelated matters - false pretences and stealing.
The extent of his traffic record was the subject of dispute in the Court below. It turned on whether two previous drink driving offences had been revived by the acceptance of the plea of guilty in the present proceedings. My view of the matter was that the convictions had been revived by the circumstance of the acceptance of and acting on the plea of guilty and that, if the sentencing Judge below did not take them into account, he was erroneous in that regard.
In any event it was not disputed in this Court by counsel that the view expressed below by other counsel was incorrect. The sentencing Judge had volunteered that he did not think that the extent of the traffic record would matter one way or the other.
Police who were in Old Burleigh Road, Surfers Paradise, heard the screech of tyres and saw the vehicle driven by the applicant come out of a nearby driveway, cross the road suddenly and come to rest in the vicinity of a power pole. From the manner of its exit from the driveway it was apparent that the applicant had not had regard to whether there were pedestrians or vehicles near the exit from the driveway. There was a female passenger in the vehicle.
The police called upon the applicant to stop but the vehicle reversed in their direction as a result of which they took evasive action. It was not contended by the prosecution that the vehicle was deliberately driven at the police. The applicant then drove down the road, fishtailing the vehicle. The police pursued him with their flashing light and siren activated. The applicant failed to stop when he made a right-hand turn and then drove through a Stop sign at another intersection without stopping.
He parked his vehicle on the wrong side of the street a short distance further on and fled from it. He was caught soon afterwards having fallen down a set of stairs nearby. The driving occurred over a distance of, at most, a kilometre.
The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence. In the rather lengthy period between the offence and sentence he had attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and completed another program relating to consumption of alcohol. He had stopped driving and had sold his motor vehicle. He had also formed a relationship which, in the Court below, was said to be a good influence on him in the period between the offence and the sentence.
It was submitted that the application was still a young man and on the basis upon which he was sentenced had only a minor record.
It was submitted that there was insufficient material from which it could be concluded that the applicant was not suitable for community based orders or an Intensive Correction Order. It was submitted that the facts pointed to the suitability of those kinds of orders. The principle derived from The Queen v. Coake, Court of Appeal 403 of 1998, set out earlier today in The Queen v. Collier, Court of Appeal 236 of 2003, governs cases of this kind.
The applicant was 27 years at the time and therefore should have been endowed with a little more maturity than many others who offend in this way.
The manner of entry on to the roadway was dangerous. The manner in which he extracted himself from the position he had got into because of that driving had the consequence, even if inadvertent, of putting the police officers in potential danger. Driving through the Stop sign without stopping in that area of the Gold Coast was inherently dangerous.
As against those factors he had taken rehabilitative steps and there were signs that he may have had his life under control due to the relationship he was in. The imposition of a head sentence of 18 months was, in my view, not beyond a permissible range. The only issue is whether requiring him to serve six months of that period would be manifestly excessive.
Having regard to the circumstances and background matters to which I have referred I am not persuaded that requiring the applicant to serve six months of the period renders the sentence as a whole manifestly excessive and I would therefore refuse the application.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.
HELMAN J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.