Court of Appeal (Qld)|2000-05-11|Before: Davies JA, MacKenzie J, Douglas J

The applicant has a fairly minor prior criminal history. Included in it is only one substantial conviction and that being for two offences of breaking, entering and stealing and one of receiving for which he was sentenced to

12 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two months.

His other offences apart from traffic offences to which I will shortly refer, appear to relate mainly to possession of drugs. However, his traffic history is quite substantial. He has at least 14 convictions for traffic offences between 1989 and mid-1997. Most of these were for speeding or driving a defective vehicle but he has one conviction for drink driving.

It is plain that having regard to his age and his prior criminal history he is not an appropriate candidate for probation or community service nor was that suggested by

Mr McLennan who appeared for him before this Court. The submission on his behalf was that the sentence should have been wholly suspended. In support of that submission it was said that he not previously been convicted of careless driving, that the driving in this case could fairly be said to fall at the lower end of the scale of deliberate recklessness and that while there was potential injury to members of the public no one was, in fact, injured.

He did take, as it turned out, effective evasive action and he did apologize afterwards both to the driver of the approaching vehicle and in his interview with the police. It was also pointed out that the Crown prosecutor conceded below that an non custodial sentence was open perhaps by suspending the sentence or imposing a maximum number of hours of community service.

It is no doubt correct that in this case it would have been open to the learned sentencing Judge to wholly suspend the sentence as the applicant now contends. On the other hand I cannot be satisfied that the sentence which the learned sentencing Judge, in fact, imposed was an error in the exercise of his sentencing discretion. Serious aspects of this case were the potential for very serious injury both to nearby picnickers and the oncoming motorist both of which were avoided as much by good luck as by good management.

The applicant's previous serious traffic history and his mature age, his attempts to apparently either avoid or postpone the hearing by simply not appearing, and the fact that although he pleaded guilty it was extremely late. I would therefore refuse the application.

DAVIES JA: The application is refused. A warrant is issued but the Court order is that it lie in the Registry for seven days.

THE QUEEN v CLIVE ROBERT JOHN BOLTON [2000] QCA 175 (11 May 2000)

THE QUEEN v CLIVE ROBERT JOHN BOLTON [2000] QCA 175

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

THE QUEEN v CLIVE ROBERT JOHN BOLTON [2000] QCA 175 (11 May 2000)