R v Anning - [2008] QCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Anning [2008] QCA 161

PARTIES:

R
v
ANNING, Paul Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 72 of 2008
DC No 18 of 2007
DC No 498 of 2007
DC No 499 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – application by convicted person for leave to appeal against sentence- where applicant pleaded guilty to three separate and unrelated counts of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where attack on the complainants was unprovoked – sentenced to imprisonment for two years on each count, to be served cumulatively – no order made in relation to early parole - whether sentence was manifestly excessive – whether sufficient consideration was given to the applicant’s pleas of guilty and youth– whether the learned trial judge considered the totality principle

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1), s 9(4)

R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 179, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Cullinane J with which I agree.

These offences of grievous bodily harm were committed by the applicant on three quite separate occasions over a 12 month period on three different complainants. He was on bail for the first offence when he committed the second, and for the first and second offences when he committed the third. The victims in each case suffered serious physical injuries and prolonged psychological distress as a result of his separate attacks. Fortunately, the consequences for the victims were not even more serious. It is now notorious that even a single punch to the head of a victim can cause permanent brain injury or even death. Community protection[1] and personal and general deterrence[2] were important sentencing principles in this case.
[1]Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4)(a), s 9(4)(b).
[2]Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(c).

All that can be said in the applicant’s favour is that he pleaded guilty at an early stage; he was a comparatively young man (22 and 23 years old) when he committed the offences; references tendered show that he has positive aspects to his character; he had a dysfunctional background; and his criminal history, which consisted of a conviction for dangerous operation of a vehicle and some street offences at least one of which involved drunkenness, was relatively minor with no…

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 Anning

Details

AGLC: R v Anning [2008] QCA 161
Case: [2008] QCA 161
Decision Date: 20 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application in the case of R v Anning was brought before the court as an appeal against sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to three separate and unrelated complainants. The attacks were unprovoked, and the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years on each count, to be served cumulatively. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered his pleas of guilty and youth, nor the totality principle.

The court considered the applicant's arguments and examined the principles of sentencing relevant to the case. The court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court also examined whether the trial judge had given sufficient consideration to the applicant's pleas of guilty and youth, as well as the totality principle, which requires that the total sentence should not be greater than the sum of the appropriate sentences for each offence.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant sentencing principles, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court determined that the trial judge had given appropriate consideration to the applicant's pleas of guilty and youth, as well as the totality principle. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and that the totality principle had been adequately taken into account.

The court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The applicant's sentence of imprisonment for two years on each count, to be served cumulatively, was upheld. No order was made in relation to early parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Anning [2008] QCA 161
PARTIES:	R v ANNING, Paul Michael (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 72 of 2008 DC No 18 of 2007 DC No 498 of 2007 DC No 499 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 May 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – application by convicted person for leave to appeal against sentence- where applicant pleaded guilty to three separate and unrelated counts of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where attack on the complainants was unprovoked – sentenced to imprisonment for two years on each count, to be served cumulatively – no order made in relation to early parole - whether sentence was manifestly excessive – whether sufficient consideration was given to the applicant’s pleas of guilty and youth– whether the learned trial judge considered the totality principle Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1), s 9(4) R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 179, considered
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent