R v Anderson - [2012] QCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Anderson [2012] QCA 264

PARTIES:

R
v
ANDERSON, Christopher James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 54 of 2012
DC No 464 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

28 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial of one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment with parole release fixed after fifteen months – where the applicant was an experienced security guard in his mid-thirties working at a hotel – where the applicant struck a female patron, breaking her jaw – where the assault was an over-reaction to a minor, brief and unthreatening physical contact – where the applicant had previous convictions for public nuisance offences but none for offences of violence – where the applicant had shown no remorse – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Grimley [2000] QCA 64, considered
R v Harvey[2003] QCA 286, considered
R v Katsidis[2003] QCA 82, considered
R v Lambert; ex parte A-G (2000) 111 A Crim R 564, [2000] QCA 141, considered
R v Taputoro[2007] QCA 29, considered

COUNSEL:

J J Allen for the applicant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The applicant was convicted, after a trial, of grievous bodily harm. He applies for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, two years and six months imprisonment with parole release fixed after fifteen months, on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

The factual basis of the sentence

The applicant was a security officer at a hotel in Ayr. The complainant, Ms Beteridge, was one of a group of six people who were standing, late at night, on the footpath outside the hotel. One of the group, Mr Liebrecht, was engaged in an argument with the manager, with whom he had previously had altercations, about whether he was entitled to be on the footpath. The applicant’s account was that he received a call to go to the front of the hotel where he saw the manager arguing with Mr Liebrecht. Following the manager’s instructions to get the group off the footpath, he repeatedly told Mr Liebrecht to move. Eventually, Mr Liebrecht did move onto the road, and the applicant took up a position on the edge of the footpath to ensure that he could not step back onto it. He was focussing on Mr Liebrecht when Ms Beteridge hit him on the side of his…

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 R v Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2012] QCA 264
Case: [2012] QCA 264
Decision Date: 28 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Anderson involved the appellant, a man in his mid-thirties with a history of public nuisance offences but no previous violent convictions, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to a female patron at a hotel where he worked as a security guard. The appellant struck the woman, resulting in a broken jaw, after she made brief, unthreatening physical contact with him. The appellant was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, with parole eligibility set after fifteen months. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's background, and the principles of sentencing as established in relevant case law. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence deviated significantly from what would be considered appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the appellant's lack of remorse and prior history of non-violent misconduct.

In examining the appeal, the court considered the severity of the injury inflicted and the appellant's overreaction to a minor incident. While acknowledging the appellant's lack of a prior history of violent offences, the court also highlighted the appellant's failure to show remorse and his position as an experienced security guard, which carried an expectation of maintaining order and restraint. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate punishments for the offence committed and was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the application for appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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:	R v Anderson [2012] QCA 264
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Christopher James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 54 of 2012 DC No 464 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	28 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 September 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial of one count of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment with parole release fixed after fifteen months – where the applicant was an experienced security guard in his mid-thirties working at a hotel – where the applicant struck a female patron, breaking her jaw – where the assault was an over-reaction to a minor, brief and unthreatening physical contact – where the applicant had previous convictions for public nuisance offences but none for offences of violence – where the applicant had shown no remorse – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Grimley [2000] QCA 64, considered R v Harvey[2003] QCA 286, considered R v Katsidis[2003] QCA 82, considered R v Lambert; ex parte A-G (2000) 111 A Crim R 564, [2000] QCA 141, considered R v Taputoro[2007] QCA 29, considered
COUNSEL:	J J Allen for the applicant B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent