Caddies v Birchell

Case [2018] QDC 180


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caddies v Birchell [2018] QDC 180

PARTIES: 

Alan David Caddies

(Appellant)

v

Benjamin Edward Malcolm Birchall

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S: 

007/2018

DIVISION: 

Appellate

PROCEEDING: 

Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT: 

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 

4 September 2018

DELIVERED AT: 

Townsville

HEARING DATE: 

6 July 2018

JUDGE: 

Coker DCJ

ORDER: 

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The hearing is adjourned for sentence on a date to be fixed.

3.   Bail is enlarged.

CATCHWORDS:

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST
SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE

– section 222 Justices Act 1886 – where appellant was convicted after trial of assault occasioning bodily harm (domestic violence offence) – where appellant suffered significant physical injuries during the course of the incident – whether the appellant’s injuries capable of amounting to extra-curial punishment – whether the sentencing discretion should be re-exercised to take into account the injuries suffered by the appellant – where the appellant made an offer of compensation – whether the offer of compensation indicated a degree of remorse – whether the sentencing discretion should be re-exercised to take into account the offer of compensation.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 225(1)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(g), s 9(2)(k), s 9(2)(3)

CASES:

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499

IFM v Queensland Police Service [2016] QDC 140

Kentwell v R [2014] 252 CLR 60

Margaret Wilson in R v Hyatt [2011] QCA 55

Owens v The Queensland Police Service [2012] QDC 392

Rongo v The Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 258

Ross v The Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 99

R v Davidson; ex parte Attorney-General [2009] QCA 283

R v Fairbrother; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 105

R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51

R v George [2006] QCA 001

R v Hannigan [2009] QCA 40

R v Hook [2006] QCA 458

R v Johnson [2002] QCA 283

R v King [2006] QCA 466

R v Pierpoint [2001] QCA 493

R v RAP [2014] QCA 228

R v Roach [2009] QCA 360

R v Von Pein [2002] QCA 385

Spizzirri v The Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 222

Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327

COUNSEL:

D Honchin for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Stevenson McNamara Lawyers for the Appellant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Respondent

  1. This appeal was filed pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1881 (“The Act”). I reserved my decision in relation to the determination of the appeal.

Background:

  1. On the 3rd of June 2016 the appellant, Alan David Caddies, was convicted of the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm (domestic violence offence) committed on 12 December 2014. This followed a two-day trial conducted on the 26th of February and the 5th of May 2016. Sentencing was adjourned and prior to sentencing the appellant lodged an appeal against conviction in the District Court at Townsville. This appeal also was pursuant to the provisions of section 222…

Continue reading Caddies v Birchell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Caddies v Birchell [2018] QDC 180
Case
[2018] QDC 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Caddies v Birchell, the appellant sought to appeal a sentence imposed on him after a conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm, a domestic violence offence. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant's argument was based on the significant physical injuries he suffered during the incident, which he contended should be considered as extra-curial punishment. Furthermore, the appellant argued that his offer of compensation should be taken into account as an indication of remorse, and that the sentencing discretion should be re-exercised.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's injuries could be considered as extra-curial punishment and whether the offer of compensation indicated a degree of remorse. The court was also required to determine whether the sentencing discretion should be re-exercised to take into account the injuries suffered by the appellant and his offer of compensation.

The court found that the appellant's injuries were significant and should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the offer of compensation indicated a degree of remorse and that the sentencing discretion should be re-exercised to take into account the injuries suffered by the appellant and his offer of compensation. The appeal was allowed, the hearing was adjourned for sentence on a date to be fixed, and bail was enlarged.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The hearing is adjourned for sentence on a date to be fixed.

3. Bail is enlarged.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.