R v Simpson [2001] QCA 109

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-03-21|Before: Murdo P, Moynihan J, Dutney J

The applicant, of course, was sentenced for a course of driving which extended over the duration of the journey which I have described. The learned sentencing Judge, as he was entitled, took account of the whole course of conduct in respect of the imposition of the sentence in respect of the first of the counts on which he sentenced the applicant.

I mention that because that consideration needs to be borne in mind in considering the sentence which was imposed.

It is true that the applicant may have been properly described as a hard working young woman with substantial talent. She is now, the evidence before the sentencing Judge revealed, endeavouring to get her life back on track having appreciated the consequences of her conduct. It was also drawn to the sentencing Judge's attention that she had written off some $25,000 which she had put towards the purchase of her vehicle, which was damaged in the accident. That however is a frequent and foreseeable outcome of engaging in dangerous driving and the extent to which it might ameliorate any penalty must not be of any great weight.

I am not persuaded, having regard to the seriousness of the course of conduct, the roadways on which it took place, the period of time over which it extended, the fact that the applicant had not long before been convicted of the identical offence and the relatively minor consideration that she was driving with her licence expired; all those factors to my mind notwithstanding the factors that have been canvassed in support of a lower sentence demonstrate that the sentence imposed was within the range of a sound sentencing discretion.

That is not to say that for example a lesser period of suspension of the driver's licence may not also have been within the appropriate range available in the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion, but in the circumstances of this case, that factor, it seems to me, does not justify intervention by this Court.

Reference was made to a number of cases. I do not propose dealing with them in detail. They, as occurs in cases of this kind, have factors which weigh in favour of taking a lesser or a more stringent view of the sentence than the sentencing Judge took. It is as I say, in my view a sentence within the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion given the characteristics of the activity which I have already mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree. The course of driving was serious, another road user suffered injury, her blood alcohol level was substantial, and the applicant had a prior conviction for a similar offence.

The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and I specifically join with Justice Moynihan and his comments as to the disqualification period. I agree with the order proposed.

DUTNEY J: I agree. It is difficult to regard the imposition of a substantial fine on top of a suspended sentence of imprisonment as manifestly excessive having regard to the very high likelihood that driving of the type described by Justice Moynihan over a distance of at least three kilometres on a road as busy as Kingsford Smith Drive and on the Gateway Arterial road would result in injury as occurred, and perhaps serious injury to others with the misfortune to be in the vicinity at the time.

I do not consider a five year disqualification although high to be inappropriate in the circumstances of the applicant being a recent repeat offender.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application for leave to appeal is refused.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (11 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)