Getawan v Queensland Police Service - [2024] QCA 234

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Getawan v Queensland Police Service [2024] QCA 234

PARTIES:

GETAWAN, Henry Raymond
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2023
DC No 2 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Unreported, 3 August 2023 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Flanagan and Brown JJA

ORDERS:

1. The applicant’s oral application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one charge of serious assault occasioning bodily harm whilst adversely affected in a public place, one charge of obstructing police while adversely affected in a public place and one charge of possessing tainted property – where the offending occurred while the applicant was affected by serotonin syndrome following his voluntary consumption of drugs – where the total penalty imposed by the Magistrate was 15 months’ imprisonment – where the applicant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222(2)(c) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and the District Court judge dismissed the appeal – where the applicant contends that the charges should have been dismissed due to his ‘insanity’ – where the applicant contends that the Magistrate and District Court judge did not have regard to his mental and physical health at the time of the offending when considering the sentence – where the applicant made an oral application to adduce further evidence in relation to his physical health at the time of the offending

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222

McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612; [2017] QCA 255, cited
R v Gerhardt (2019) 3 QR 48; [2019] QCA 283, cited
R v RBE (2021) 8 QR 358; [2021] QCA 146, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S R O’Rourke for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS P: I agree with Brown JA.
FLANAGAN JA: I agree with Brown JA.
BROWN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld). The applicant is Mr Getawan, who now chooses to go by the name of Israel Judah.
On 12 December 2022, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Townsville to:
(a)one charge of serious assault occasioning bodily harm whilst adversely affected in a public place;
(b)one charge of obstructing police while adversely affected in a public place; and
(c)one charge of possessing tainted property.
On the same date, the Magistrate imposed a head sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment on the serious assault…

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 Getawan 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: [2024] QCA 234
Decision Date: 22 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Getawan appealed against his sentence in the District Court, arguing that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive and did not adequately consider his mental and physical health at the time of the offending. The applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of serious assault occasioning bodily harm whilst adversely affected in a public place, one charge of obstructing police while adversely affected in a public place, and one charge of possessing tainted property. The offending occurred while the applicant was affected by serotonin syndrome following his voluntary consumption of drugs. The Magistrate imposed a total penalty of 15 months’ imprisonment, and the District Court judge dismissed the appeal. The applicant contends that the charges should have been dismissed due to his ‘insanity’ and that the Magistrate and District Court judge did not have regard to his mental and physical health at the time of the offending when considering the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was also required to determine whether the Magistrate and District Court judge had adequately considered the applicant’s mental and physical health at the time of the offending when imposing the sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the circumstances of the offending. The court also considered the applicant’s mental and physical health at the time of the offending and whether this should have been a mitigating factor in the sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused the applicant’s oral application for leave to adduce further evidence. The court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and that the Magistrate and District Court judge had adequately considered the applicant’s mental and physical health at the time of the offending when imposing the sentence. The court found that the applicant’s voluntary consumption of drugs and his serotonin syndrome did not amount to ‘insanity’ and that the applicant was still capable of forming the requisite intent for the offences. The court also found that the applicant’s mental and physical health at the time of the offending were not sufficient to warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court’s orders were that the applicant’s oral application for leave to adduce further evidence was refused and that leave to appeal was refused. The court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and that the Magistrate and District Court judge had adequately considered the applicant’s mental and physical health at the time of the offending when imposing the sentence. The court also found that the applicant’s voluntary consumption of drugs and his serotonin syndrome did not amount to ‘insanity’ and that the applicant was still capable of forming the requisite intent for the offences. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s oral application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. Leave to appeal refused.

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:	Getawan v Queensland Police Service [2024] QCA 234
PARTIES:	GETAWAN, Henry Raymond (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 150 of 2023 DC No 2 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Unreported, 3 August 2023 (Coker DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	22 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 November 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Flanagan and Brown JJA
ORDERS:	1. The applicant’s oral application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused. 2. Leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one charge of serious assault occasioning bodily harm whilst adversely affected in a public place, one charge of obstructing police while adversely affected in a public place and one charge of possessing tainted property – where the offending occurred while the applicant was affected by serotonin syndrome following his voluntary consumption of drugs – where the total penalty imposed by the Magistrate was 15 months’ imprisonment – where the applicant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222(2)(c) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and the District Court judge dismissed the appeal – where the applicant contends that the charges should have been dismissed due to his ‘insanity’ – where the applicant contends that the Magistrate and District Court judge did not have regard to his mental and physical health at the time of the offending when considering the sentence – where the applicant made an oral application to adduce further evidence in relation to his physical health at the time of the offending District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612; [2017] QCA 255, cited R v Gerhardt (2019) 3 QR 48; [2019] QCA 283, cited R v RBE (2021) 8 QR 358; [2021] QCA 146, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S R O’Rourke for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent