R v Bates; R v Baker

Case [2002] QCA 174

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174

PARTIES:

R
v
BATES, Peter James Bradley
(applicant)

R
v
BAKER, Kerry Anne
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 295 of 2001
CA No 329 of 2001
SC No 90 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams JA and Atkinson J concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissenting in part.

ORDER:

1. In CA No 295 of 2001 (Bates) grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and in lieu of the sentence of life imprisonment, order that Bates be imprisoned for a period of 18 years with a declaration that he was convicted of a serious violent offence.
2. In CA 329 of 2001 (Baker) dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED  - where applicants pleaded guilty to two offences of manslaughter and an assault occasioning bodily harm – where the female offender was sentenced as a child and the male offender as an adult – where the learned trial judge sentenced the male offender to life imprisonment and the female offender to twelve years imprisonment and declared that both had been convicted of serious violent offences - whether the sentences were manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTON, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – GENERALLY – where applicants initially pleaded not-guilty at one trial – where a re-trial was ordered and at the commencement, the applicants pleaded guilty - whether the learned trial judge had given any benefit for the plea of guilty – whether guilty plea was able to be used as a matter of mitigation

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTON, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – JUVENILE OFFENDERS – SENTENCING AS A CHILD OR ADULT AND IMPRISONMENT –whether the female offender’s youth and her lack of previous criminal history, plea of guilty were taken into account by the trial judge – whether the learned trial judge ordered the shortest appropriate period for the detention order as required by the Juvenile Justice Act

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 105(2), s 107B, s 121(3)(b)(ii)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) , s 13(1)

Atholwood (1999) 109 A Crim R 465, applied

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382, applied

McQuire & Porter (2000) 110 A Crim R 348, applied

R v Babsek; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 364, referred to
R v Bird and Schipper [2000] QCA 94

Continue reading R v Bates; R v Baker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174
Case
[2002] QCA 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bates; R v Baker, the applicants were convicted of two offences of manslaughter and an assault occasioning bodily harm. The court was tasked with considering the sentences imposed by the trial judge and determining whether they were manifestly excessive. The male offender was sentenced to life imprisonment while the female offender, who was sentenced as a child, received a twelve-year imprisonment term. The trial judge had declared that both had been convicted of serious violent offences.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had adequately considered the applicants' pleas of guilty, contrition, and co-operation as mitigating factors in sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge had given due consideration to the female offender's youth and lack of previous criminal history, as required by the Juvenile Justice Act. The court also needed to examine whether the sentences imposed were the shortest appropriate period for the detention order for the female offender.

The court found that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the applicants' guilty pleas and their expressions of contrition. The court considered the female offender's youth and lack of previous criminal history, and held that the trial judge had not ordered the shortest appropriate period for the detention order. However, the court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court granted leave to appeal for the male offender and allowed the appeal, substituting the sentence of life imprisonment with a sentence of 18 years imprisonment with a declaration that the offender was convicted of a serious violent offence. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence for the female offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 295 of 2001 (Bates) grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and in lieu of the sentence of life imprisonment, order that Bates be imprisoned for a period of 18 years with a declaration that he was convicted of a serious violent offence.

2. In CA 329 of 2001 (Baker) dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence

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.