Biazos v Begley

[1992] QCA 186

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ

DAVIES JA
DEMACK J

CA NO 104 OF 1992

M G BIAZOS Respondent

MATHEW DANIEL BEGLEY Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 23/6/92

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant pleaded guilty to an assault occasioning bodily harm. The offence took place in the night‑time and the applicant was in fact in company with two other persons. He was a 20 year-old kitchen-hand earning $150 a week. He was fined $400.

It is true that the applicant had no previous convictions but the circumstances of the offence were not minor. He was, after all, in company and it took place at night. The three offenders called on the complainant and reading from the affidavit of the duty solicitor who represented the complainant below, we see that this occurred; having called on the complainant, the defendant asked the complainant, if he, the complainant, had dobbed the applicant's brother in for stealing cars, and the complainant is then said to have said, "Yes, what about it?", pushing the applicant. That appeared to start off an escalation.

The applicant's retaliated by a knee to the groin of the complainant and a punch to his ribs. The complainant then responded but one of the applicant's companions, then as it is said, stood in for the complainant. The material, which is scanty, does sufficiently indicate that the visit by the three persons involved in this episode together, was because they had planned to prevent what they called a "dobbing in" by the complainant to police authorities. The episode commended aggressively and the violence, once the three visitors confronted the complainant, promptly occurred.

In fining the applicant, I am not able to say that I detect any error in the approach adopted by the Magistrate. The elements of being in company, the aggression, the purpose behind it all and the fact that there was a night visit are serious features. No complaint really is directed against the amount of the fine before us. The claim is made that the Magistrate, instead of convicting and fining, should have imposed, say, an order for community service or adopted some other approach which would have avoided a conviction. I do not say that such an approach would not have been open to the Magistrate but it is not one that he adopted. The question for us is whether the penalty imposed was one which in any way was manifestly excessive entitling us to interfere. In my opinion it was not and I would accordingly refuse the application.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Biazos v Begley involved the applicant, Mathew Daniel Begley, seeking leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate. Begley had pleaded guilty to an assault occasioning bodily harm. The incident took place at night and Begley was accompanied by two others. He was fined $400. Although Begley had no prior convictions, the court considered the circumstances of the offence to be serious, given the presence of accomplices and the timing of the assault. The court also noted that the attack was premeditated and intended to prevent the victim from reporting a crime to the police.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the penalty imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive, thereby warranting interference by the Court of Appeal. The court examined the approach taken by the magistrate in fining Begley and found no error in the reasoning. The elements of the offence, including the presence of accomplices, the aggression, the purpose behind the assault, and the timing of the incident were all considered serious features. Although the court acknowledged that an alternative penalty, such as community service, could have been imposed, it was not the approach taken by the magistrate. The court concluded that the penalty imposed was not manifestly excessive and therefore refused the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Macrossan CJ, Davies JA, and Demack J, unanimously agreed that the application for leave to appeal should be refused. The court found that the penalty imposed by the magistrate was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. As a result, the applicant's sentence of a $400 fine for the assault occasioning bodily harm was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established