Legal Research
Cases
R v Beacham

R v Beacham

Case [2006] QCA 268 28 July 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Beacham [2006] QCA 268

PARTIES:

R
v
BEACHAM, Dion Francis
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 297 of 2005
SC No 37 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

28 July 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Jerrard JA concurring as to the orders made, Jones J dissenting in part

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Set aside the term of 13 years imprisonment and substitute a sentence of 12 years imprisonment

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 – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful killing, rape and robbery with circumstances of aggravation – Mental Health Court ruled that applicant suffered from diminished responsibility when he killed the deceased – applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter, six years imprisonment for rape and six years imprisonment for robbery and declared a serious violent offender – sentences to be served concurrently – whether trial judge erred in concluding that applicant would be guilty of murder but for his diminished responsibility – whether trial judge erred in concluding that a felony murder was as serious, or more serious than, murder with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm – whether trial judge erred in assessing the future danger posed by the applicant to the community and the impact of that assessment on the sentencing process – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 302(1)(a), s 302(1)(b)
Mental Health Act2000 (Qld), Pt 3 of Ch 3
Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 9(4)

R v Duong, Nguyen, Bui and Quoc [2002] QCA 151; CA Nos 343 of 2001, 338 of 2001, 336 of 2001, 344 of 2001, 30 April 2002, considered
R v Milini [2001] QCA 424; CA No 190 of 2001, 9 October 2001, considered
R v Neumann; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 362; CA No 186 of 2005, 30 September 2005, distinguished
R v Schuurs [2000] QCA 72; CA No 403 of 1999, 15 March 2000, considered
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465, considered

COUNSEL:

S G Durward SC for applicant/appellant
V P Keegan for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The facts and issues are set out in the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA with which I agree.

There is nothing I wish to add to Jerrard JA's reasons for rejecting grounds 1 and 2 of the application for leave to appeal.

The remaining grounds, which deal with whether the judge erred in assessing…

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 Beacham

Details

AGLC: R v Beacham [2006] QCA 268
Case: [2006] QCA 268
Decision Date: 28 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Beacham involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to the charges of unlawful killing, rape, and robbery with circumstances of aggravation. The court was asked to determine the appropriate sentence for the applicant who had been found to suffer from diminished responsibility at the time of the offence. The applicant was ultimately sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter, six years for rape, and six years for robbery, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The applicant sought to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in various respects and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide involved the trial judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's diminished responsibility, the relative seriousness of felony murder compared to murder with intent, and the assessment of the future danger posed by the applicant. The applicant contended that the trial judge had erred in concluding that he would have been guilty of murder but for his diminished responsibility. The applicant also argued that the trial judge had erred in concluding that a felony murder was as serious, or more serious than, murder with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the applicant argued that the trial judge had erred in assessing the future danger posed by the applicant to the community and that this assessment had an undue impact on the sentencing process.

The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant and found that the trial judge had indeed erred in certain respects. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered the mitigating effect of the applicant's diminished responsibility on the seriousness of the offences. The court also found that the trial judge had incorrectly assessed the future danger posed by the applicant, which had influenced the sentence imposed. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal, substituting a sentence of 12 years imprisonment for the 13 years originally imposed for manslaughter.

The orders of the court included granting the applicant leave to appeal against his sentence, allowing the appeal, setting aside the original sentence of 13 years imprisonment, and substituting a sentence of 12 years imprisonment. The court's decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the impact of diminished responsibility and the future danger posed by the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the term of 13 years imprisonment and substitute a sentence of 12 years imprisonment

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Beacham [2006] QCA 268

Most Recent Citation

R v Potter; ex parte [2008] QCA 91

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

The King v Thomas Prescott Hill
[2024] QSC 196

…Defence counsel also relied on Pringle as well as R v Potter; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2008] QCA 91; R v Beacham [2006] QCA 268; R v Mielke [2021] QSC 127; R v Venn [2023] QSC 173 and The King v Hubbard , Supreme Court, Cairns, 6 March 2023. He submitted that there should be a short, cumulative sentence o…
R v Zarnke
[2019] QCA 141 Para 1

…ribed drugs.” [30](2006) 163 A Crim R 348 at 351 [13]; (2006) QCA 268 at [13]. [31](2006) 163 A Crim R 348 at 350 [10]; [2006] QCA 268 at [10]. [32](2006) 163 A Crim R 348 at 350 [11]; [2006] QCA 268 at [11]. [33](2006) 163 A Crim R 348 at 357-358 [37]; [2006] QCA 268 at [37].…
R v West
[2011] QCA 76 Para 1

…d to by head injuries and the temazepam. The sentencing judge imposed a term of 13 years imprisonment, which was reduced to 12 years on appeal. [10][2006] QCA 268.…
R v. Potter; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2008] QCA 91 Para 1

…[6]Unreported, Douglas J, SC No 465 of 2002, 20 September 2004. [7]Unreported, Holmes J, SC No 272 of 2005, 20 May 2005. [8](2006) 163 A Crim R 348; [2006] QCA 268.…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v DFB
[2005] QMHC 28 Para 1

…substantially impair his capacity to know he ought not do the act or acts resulting in the death; he was of diminished responsibility.[1] [1] R v DFB [2005] QMHC 28; CA No 180 of 2003, 17 February 2005.…
R v Neumann; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)
[2005] QCA 362 Para 1

…e reports were those placed before the Mental Health Court in February 2005 and were prepared at various dates between June 2003 and January 2005. [2][2005] QCA 362; CA No 186 of 2005, 30 September 2005.…
R v Duong, Nguyen, Bui and Quoc
[2002] QCA 151 Para 1

…hat conclusion, in part, by reference to the sentence imposed after a plea - 12 years imprisonment - in the matter of R v Duong, Nguyen, Bui and Quoc [2002] QCA 151.[7] I respectfully agree with that assessment of the range of sentence after a trial, not challenged on the application by Mr Durward SC for Mr Beach…
R v DeSalvo
[2002] QCA 63 Para 1

…parisons less material. [14]CA Nos 343 of 2001, 338 of 2001, 336 of 2001, 344 of 2001, 30 April 2002. [15] R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183; R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63; CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March 2002.…
R v Milini
[2001] QCA 424 Para 1

…fended would have justified a very substantial reduction in the otherwise appropriate sentence, such as the sentence this Court imposed in R v Milini [2001] QCA 424.[11] That reduction would reflect both his diminished responsibility and the considerable lessening in the risk he would pose on release. Whatever th…
R v Schuurs
[2000] QCA 72 Para 1

…d referred this Court support the (11 year) sentence first suggested by the sentencing judge. One matter is the decision of this Court in R v Schuurs [2000] QCA 72.[12] That offender was sentenced for manslaughter after a trial. He was one of three people who went armed to the home of a drug associate, to demand…
R v Collins
[1998] QCA 280 Para 1

…determined to impose a term of imprisonment[25] it was highly relevant in this case to consider the future risk to the community. [25] R v Collins [1998] QCA 280.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14

…er 2005, distinguished R v Schuurs [2000] QCA 72; CA No 403 of 1999, 15 March 2000, considered Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465, considered COUNSEL: S G Durward SC for applicant/appellant V P Keegan for respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Que…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
9(4) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Beacham [2006] QCA 268
PARTIES:	R v BEACHAM, Dion Francis (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 297 of 2005 SC No 37 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Jerrard JA concurring as to the orders made, Jones J dissenting in part
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Set aside the term of 13 years imprisonment and substitute a sentence of 12 years imprisonment
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 – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful killing, rape and robbery with circumstances of aggravation – Mental Health Court ruled that applicant suffered from diminished responsibility when he killed the deceased – applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter, six years imprisonment for rape and six years imprisonment for robbery and declared a serious violent offender – sentences to be served concurrently – whether trial judge erred in concluding that applicant would be guilty of murder but for his diminished responsibility – whether trial judge erred in concluding that a felony murder was as serious, or more serious than, murder with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm – whether trial judge erred in assessing the future danger posed by the applicant to the community and the impact of that assessment on the sentencing process – whether sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 302(1)(a), s 302(1)(b) Mental Health Act2000 (Qld), Pt 3 of Ch 3 Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 9(4) R v Duong, Nguyen, Bui and Quoc [2002] QCA 151; CA Nos 343 of 2001, 338 of 2001, 336 of 2001, 344 of 2001, 30 April 2002, considered R v Milini [2001] QCA 424; CA No 190 of 2001, 9 October 2001, considered R v Neumann; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 362; CA No 186 of 2005, 30 September 2005, distinguished R v Schuurs [2000] QCA 72; CA No 403 of 1999, 15 March 2000, considered Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465, considered
COUNSEL:	S G Durward SC for applicant/appellant V P Keegan for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent