Edwards v Queensland Police Service - [2021] QDC 88

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Edwards v Queensland Police Service [2021] QDC 88

PARTIES:

AARON LEIGH EDWARDS

(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO:
40 of 2021

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2021

JUDGE:

Coker DCJ

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed

2. Set aside the sentence imposed on 9 March 2021

3. In substitution, the Appellant is convicted and in respect of the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed in company, is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 19 May 2021.

4. Otherwise, the penalty in respect of the charge of wilful damage is confirmed though subject to the parole release date of 19 May 2021.

5. Any submissions as to costs by the Appellant are to be filed within 28 days and any submissions by the Respondent are to be filed within 14 days of receipt.

6. I declare that 132 days is pre-sentence custody from 6 January 2021 to 18 May 2021 be declared as time already served.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – Section 222 Justices Act 1886 – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – where Appellant pleaded guilty to 1 count of wilful damage and 1 count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where the Appellant was sentenced to 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for the count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where a lesser concurrent sentence was imposed in respect of the count of wilful damage – where a parole release date was fixed at the 1/3 mark – where the appellant had specific physical injuries requiring ongoing physiotherapy and pain medication – where background event were said to have affected the Appellant’s actions towards the complainant – whether the sentence in all the circumstances was manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886, s 224

CASES:

Craig v OPS [2014] QDC 50

Dinsdale v the Queen [2000] HCA 54; [2000] 202 CLR 32

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

R v Hilton [2009] QCA 12

R v Ikin [2007] QCA 224

R v Lomass (1981) 5 A Crim R 230, [1923] St R Qd 278

R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98

Rongo v Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 258

Ross v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 99

COUNSEL:
A. Gaden for the Respondent
R. Scholl for the Applicant

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Lee Turnbull & Co Solicitors for the Applicant

Introduction

This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant is Aaron Leigh Edwards whom I shall hereinafter refer to as the Appellant. He was convicted on his own plea in the Magistrates Court at Townsville on the 9^th of March 2021. He pleaded guilty to two counts. The first, a charge of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QDC 88
Decision Date: 26 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the appellant, Edwards, against the Queensland Police Service concerns the sentence imposed on him following his guilty plea to one count of wilful damage and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company. The sentence was handed down in the District Court, and the appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Edwards was sentenced to 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for the assault charge and a concurrent lesser sentence for the wilful damage charge. The court set a parole release date at one third of the sentence, reflecting the appellant’s specific physical injuries and the impact of background events on his actions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it took into account all relevant mitigating factors. The court had to determine if the sentence was appropriate considering the appellant’s physical condition, which required ongoing physiotherapy and pain medication, and the circumstances that led to his criminal conduct. Additionally, the court examined if the sentence appropriately balanced the severity of the offence with the need for punishment and deterrence.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors and the appellant's physical condition. It was held that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the case, including the appellant's need for ongoing medical treatment and the impact of his background. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of 18 months imprisonment for the assault charge, with a parole release date of 19 May 2021. The lesser penalty for the wilful damage charge was confirmed, subject to the same parole release date. The court also declared that the appellant's pre-sentence custody from 6 January 2021 to 18 May 2021 be recognised as time already served.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Set aside the sentence imposed on 9 March 2021

3. In substitution, the Appellant is convicted and in respect of the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed in company, is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 19 May 2021.

4. Otherwise, the penalty in respect of the charge of wilful damage is confirmed though subject to the parole release date of 19 May 2021.

5. Any submissions as to costs by the Appellant are to be filed within 28 days and any submissions by the Respondent are to be filed within 14 days of receipt.

6. I declare that 132 days is pre-sentence custody from 6 January 2021 to 18 May 2021 be declared as time already served.

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.

CITATION:	Edwards v Queensland Police Service [2021] QDC 88
PARTIES:	AARON LEIGH EDWARDS (Appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent)
FILE NO:	40 of 2021
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	26 May 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2021
JUDGE:	Coker DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Set aside the sentence imposed on 9 March 2021 3. In substitution, the Appellant is convicted and in respect of the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed in company, is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 19 May 2021. 4. Otherwise, the penalty in respect of the charge of wilful damage is confirmed though subject to the parole release date of 19 May 2021. 5. Any submissions as to costs by the Appellant are to be filed within 28 days and any submissions by the Respondent are to be filed within 14 days of receipt. 6. I declare that 132 days is pre-sentence custody from 6 January 2021 to 18 May 2021 be declared as time already served.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – Section 222 Justices Act 1886 – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – where Appellant pleaded guilty to 1 count of wilful damage and 1 count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where the Appellant was sentenced to 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for the count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where a lesser concurrent sentence was imposed in respect of the count of wilful damage – where a parole release date was fixed at the 1/3 mark – where the appellant had specific physical injuries requiring ongoing physiotherapy and pain medication – where background event were said to have affected the Appellant’s actions towards the complainant – whether the sentence in all the circumstances was manifestly excessive.
LEGISLATION:	Justices Act 1886, s 224
CASES:	Craig v OPS [2014] QDC 50 Dinsdale v the Queen [2000] HCA 54; [2000] 202 CLR 32 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 R v Hilton [2009] QCA 12 R v Ikin [2007] QCA 224 R v Lomass (1981) 5 A Crim R 230, [1923] St R Qd 278 R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98 Rongo v Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 258 Ross v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 99
COUNSEL:	A. Gaden for the Respondent R. Scholl for the Applicant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent Lee Turnbull & Co Solicitors for the Applicant