R v Aplin

Case [2014] QCA 332

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Aplin [2014] QCA 332

PARTIES:

R
v
APLIN, Sunil Frederick
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 101 of 2013
DC No 87 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a declaration that his conviction was for a serious violent offence – where the applicant punched and twice kicked or stamped the complainant in the head – where the offence had terrible and permanent consequences for the complainant – whether the sentence, including the serious violent offence declaration, was manifestly excessive

R v Bonner[1997] QCA 394, considered
R v Bryan; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Chambers, Harrison and Fisher; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 136 A Crim R 89; [2002] QCA 534, considered
R v Connelly, unreported, Samios DCJ, DC No 164 of 2009, 10 June 2009, cited
R v Ford[2011] QCA 208, distinguished
R v King & Morgan; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 134 A Crim R 215; [2002] QCA 376, considered
R v Kirkby[2001] QCA 37, considered
R v Lewis; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2003] QCA 133, considered
R v Parker[2011] QCA 198, distinguished
R v Tahir; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 294, considered
R v Thomason; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2011] QCA 9, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Burns QC, with D P Carlton, for the applicant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fiona Graham & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  I agree with Fraser JA’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal against sentence.

  1. FRASER JA:  Towards the end of the first day of the applicant’s trial upon a charge of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, which it had been estimated would occupy approximately three days, the applicant was re-arraigned and he pleaded guilty.  On the following day, 3 April 2013, he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment.  The applicant’s conviction was declared to be a conviction for a serious violent offence and it was declared that a period of 255 days between 22 July 2012 and 2 April 2013 during which the applicant was held in pre-sentence custody was imprisonment already served under the sentence.

  1. The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against sentence.  The grounds of appeal…

Continue reading R v Aplin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aplin [2014] QCA 332
Case
[2014] QCA 332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aplin involved the appellant who pleaded guilty to an offence of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm. The court sentenced him to nine years imprisonment and declared that the conviction was for a serious violent offence. The appellant's actions included punching and twice kicking or stamping the complainant in the head, resulting in terrible and permanent consequences for the victim. The appellant contested the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, including the declaration of the conviction as a serious violent offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed, including the declaration of the conviction as a serious violent offence, was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with evaluating the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence in light of the appellant's actions and their impact on the complainant. The court needed to consider the nature of the offence, the extent of the injuries inflicted, and the statutory guidelines and judicial discretion in sentencing for grievous bodily harm.

In determining the appeal, the court examined the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's conduct, and the consequences for the victim. The court acknowledged the gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant but also considered the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence, including the serious violent offence declaration, was within the range of appropriate punishment for the offence committed. The court found no basis for interference with the sentence, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.