King & Kordick v Styles - [1997] QCA 278

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 278
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 215 of 1997

Brisbane

Before McPherson J.A.

Pincus J.A.
de Jersey J.

[King & Kordick v. Styles]

SHARON MAREE KING and J. KORDICK

Respondents

DARREN WAYNE STYLES

(Applicant) Appellant
McPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.
de Jersey J.

Judgment delivered 12 September 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW
VARIED:

1. TO REDUCE THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED FOR THE OFFENCE COMMITTED ON 4 FEBRUARY 1997 SO THAT IT EXPIRES ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1997; AND
2. BY ORDERING THAT THE APPLICANT BE RELEASED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN AUTHORISED COMMISSION OFFICER FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT ON THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN S.92(1)(b) OF THE PENALTIES AND SENTENCES ACT 1992.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - ASSAULT OCCASIONING BODILY HARM - Circumstances of Aggravation - Assault on a Minor (10 month old child) - Section 92(1)(b) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 - R. v. Griffin (C.A. 532 of 1996) and Stanley v. di Cola (C.A. 192 of 1997) considered.

Counsel:	Mrs K. McGinness for the applicant/ appellant Mr C. Chowdhury for the respondents
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld.) for the respondents
Hearing Date:	28 August 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 12 September 1997

The applicant was sentenced in the magistrates court on 13 May 1997

on a plea of guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm

committed on 4 February 1997, for which he was ordered to serve a term of

imprisonment for 9 months. He had on 20 November 1996 previously been

sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months for a similar assault committed on

16 October 1996, that sentence being suspended for 2 years. The later

conviction activated the first sentence of 3 months, upon which the second

sentence was made cumulative. The result was an effective sentence of

imprisonment for 12 months.

What made these two assault serious instances of their kind was that

the first was committed on the applicant’s stepson aged 2½ years and the

second on his own son aged only 10 months. In the case of his stepson he

had smacked him on the face with his open hand hard enough to knock him

to the floor. He also admitted to having smacked the boy on the buttocks

several times. That incident appears to have occurred two days later and

was, as far as can be gathered, not made the subject of a charge. In the

earlier instance in 1996, the blow left bruising on the child’s face. In the

case of his 10 month old son, the force used in February 1997 was sufficient

to leave visible fingermarks on the child’s face, blackening of his right eye,

as well as a mark on his chin. An attempt was made by the parents to divert

suspicion but the matter was reported to Crisis Centre, and prosecution

followed.

The…

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.

Continue reading King & Kordick v Styles

Details

AGLC: King & Kordick v Styles [1997] QCA 278
Case: [1997] QCA 278
Decision Date: 12/09/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King & Kordick v. Styles involves the appellant, Darren Wayne Styles, who was sentenced to imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm. The respondents, Sharon Maree King and J. Kordic, are the victims of the assaults. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, with McPherson J.A., Pincus J.A., and de Jersey J. presiding. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive, considering the circumstances of the offences, and whether alternative forms of treatment should have been considered.

The court examined the severity of the assaults, which were committed against a 2½-year-old child and a 10-month-old child, both of whom are the appellant's sons. The court noted that the appellant had a history of physical abuse from his own father and had undergone counselling in an effort to control his violent impulses. Despite these mitigating factors, the court found that the appellant's conduct warranted a custodial sentence. However, the court considered whether the sentence was disproportionate and if rehabilitation could be achieved through alternative measures.

The court found that while a sentence of imprisonment for 9 months was not excessive for the second offence, it might have been too heavy considering the appellant's potential for rehabilitation. The court compared the case to previous cases where sentences were reduced on appeal, particularly in cases involving assaults on children. Based on this analysis, the court decided to reduce the term of imprisonment and order the appellant's release on probation to allow for continued counselling and treatment.

The final orders of the court were to reduce the term of imprisonment for the offence committed on 4 February 1997 to a term expiring on 30 September 1997 and to release the appellant under the supervision of an authorised Commission Officer for a period of 12 months on the conditions prescribed in section 92(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

Orders