PMB v Kelly

Case [2014] QDC 301


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: PMB v Kelly [2014] QDC 301
PARTIES:

PMB
Appellant

and

CONSTABLE B. L. KELLY
Respondent

FILE NO: No. D232 of 2014
PROCEEDING: Appeal against sentence
DELIVERED ON: 11 December 2014
DELIVERED AT: Southport
HEARING DATE:  3 December 2014
JUDGE: Judge C.F. Wall Q.C.
ORDER: Appeal dismissed, except that a new parole release date will be fixed to take into account the 38 days in custody already served by the appellant. A parole release date of 30th of January 2015 will be fixed, which takes into account 38 days pre-sentence custody.  Record that the appellant has been in pre-sentence custody for 38 days between 6th of August and 12th of September 2014, and declare that period of 38 days to be time already served under the sentence of 12 months.  
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE– where the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of contravening a domestic violence order and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with release on parole fixed after serving one third of sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive –  relevant considerations – serious assault on complainant – prior convictions for similar offences – subsequent similar offending – prevalence of domestic violence

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, s 8
Justices Act 1886, s 47

R v Taylor [2000] QCA 311

R v James [2012] QCA 256
R v Allison [2003] QCA 125

COUNSEL: Mr C. Rosser for the Appellant (direct brief)
Ms D. Darwen for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: 

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

HIS HONOUR:   This is an appeal against sentence.  On the 22nd of August 2014 in the Magistrates Court at Southport the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge that on the 3rd of August 2014 at Southport he contravened a domestic violence order made on the 21st of May 2014 in the Magistrates Court at Southport.  A conviction was recorded and he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.  A parole release date of the 5th of November 2014 was fixed and a declaration as to pre-sentence custody of 17 days between the 6th and the 22nd of August 2014 was made.  On the 12th of September 2014 the appellant was released on bail pending the hearing of the appeal.  He had by then served a further 21 days of the sentence of 12 months.  A total of 38 days has been served so far.  The appellant contends that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive. 

Counsel for the appellant, Mr Rosser, submitted to me that all of the facts stated by the prosecution to the magistrate were accepted and that he did not argue against a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, taking into account the facts and the history.  In fact, he said it was quite fair if a sentence of imprisonment was considered warranted.  In such a case, he submitted that taking into account…

Continue reading PMB v Kelly

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PMB v Kelly [2014] QDC 301
Case
[2014] QDC 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PMB v Kelly involved an appeal against the sentence given to the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to contravening a domestic violence order. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, with release on parole to be fixed after serving one third of the sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the broader context of domestic violence. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing.

The court examined the appellant's prior convictions for similar offences and noted the prevalence and seriousness of domestic violence. It held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the crime involved a serious assault on the complainant and the appellant had a history of similar offending. The court also considered the appellant's pre-sentence custody, acknowledging that he had already served 38 days in custody before the sentencing hearing. This period of pre-sentence custody was declared to be time already served under the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered a new parole release date to be fixed, taking into account the 38 days in custody already served by the appellant. The new parole release date was set for 30th of January 2015, which incorporated the 38 days of pre-sentence custody between 6th of August and 12th of September 2014. The court recorded that the appellant had been in pre-sentence custody for 38 days and declared that period to be time already served under the 12-month sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed, except that a new parole release date will be fixed to take into account the 38 days in custody already served by the appellant. A parole release date of 30th of January 2015 will be fixed, which takes into account 38 days pre-sentence custody. Record that the appellant has been in pre-sentence custody for 38 days between 6th of August and 12th of September 2014, and declare that period of 38 days to be time already served under the sentence of 12 months.

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.