R v Baker - [2012] QCA 237

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baker [2012] QCA 237

PARTIES:

R
v
BAKER, David Willie
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 63 of 2012
DC No 409 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and White JJA and North 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 – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility date fixed – where applicant at time of sentence was serving two years imprisonment with fixed parole eligibility date – where four year sentence concurrent with previous sentence – where applicant contended he had pleaded guilty due to a 12 month plea bargain made with prosecution – where prosecution subsequently submitted sentencing range of three and a half years cumulative with previous sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22, considered
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered
R v Guppy[1995] QCA 290, considered
R v Johnson[2012] QCA 141, considered
R v O’Dell[2006] QCA 8, considered
R v Trieu[2008] QCA 28, considered
R v Weare[2002] QCA 183, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of White JA and the order she proposes.

WHITE JA:
On 10 February 2012 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Cairns to one count of doing grievous bodily harm to his brother at Bentley Park on 13 November 2010. On 13 February 2012 he was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 12 December 2012. Two days in

pre-sentence custody from 13 to 15 November 2010 were declared as time served under the sentence. He was at the time of sentence serving a period of two years imprisonment imposed on 25 January 2012 in the Cairns Magistrates Court with a parole release date fixed at 12 June 2012. The four year sentence imposed on 13 February was to be served concurrently with the two year sentence.

On 11 April 2012, with the consent of the DPP, time was extended to the applicant to lodge an application for leave to appeal against sentence until 27 March 2012.

The applicant, who conducted his application for leave to appeal by video link from the Lotus Glen Prison, wrote as his ground of appeal in his application:

“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 R v Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [2012] QCA 237
Case: [2012] QCA 237
Decision Date: 4 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Baker was brought forth by the applicant who had pleaded guilty to a charge of grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with parole eligibility fixed, and the sentence was ordered to run concurrently with a two-year imprisonment term he was already serving. The applicant contended that he had entered a plea of guilty under the assumption of a 12-month plea bargain with the prosecution. However, the prosecution later indicated that the appropriate sentencing range was three and a half years, cumulative with the previous sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. This required the court to consider whether the sentence departed to a marked degree from the sentence that a properly directed sentencing judge would have imposed. The court was also required to weigh the factors that influenced the sentencing decision, including the plea bargain, the prosecution's submissions, and the principles of consistency in sentencing. The court had to evaluate whether the sentence was disproportionate and unjust in light of the applicant's plea and the agreed-upon plea bargain.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the factors that guided the trial judge in determining the sentence. It considered the applicant's contention regarding the plea bargain and the prosecution's subsequent submission of an appropriate sentencing range. After reviewing the circumstances and the submissions, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court was satisfied that the sentence was within the range suggested by the prosecution and did not constitute an error in principle.

The court ultimately refused the application, upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consistent with legal principles. It highlighted the need for clear communication between the prosecution, the defence, and the court to avoid misunderstandings regarding plea bargains and sentencing expectations. The refusal of the application meant that the applicant's four-year sentence, running concurrently with his existing sentence, stood as imposed by the trial court.

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 Baker [2012] QCA 237
PARTIES:	R v BAKER, David Willie (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 63 of 2012 DC No 409 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	4 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes and White JJA and North 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 – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility date fixed – where applicant at time of sentence was serving two years imprisonment with fixed parole eligibility date – where four year sentence concurrent with previous sentence – where applicant contended he had pleaded guilty due to a 12 month plea bargain made with prosecution – where prosecution subsequently submitted sentencing range of three and a half years cumulative with previous sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22, considered Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered R v Guppy[1995] QCA 290, considered R v Johnson[2012] QCA 141, considered R v O’Dell[2006] QCA 8, considered R v Trieu[2008] QCA 28, considered R v Weare[2002] QCA 183, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M R Byrne SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent