R v Bealing - [2003] QCA 323

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Bealing [2003] QCA 323
PARTIES: R
v
BEALING, Darren James
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 59 of 2003
DC No 514 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED EX 25 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 25 July 2003
JUDGES: Davies and Williams JJA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where
applicant convicted on armed robbery offences committed
whilst on community release – where sentenced to eight years
imprisonment cumulative on other current sentence – where
applicant had significant criminal history – whether disparity
with sentence of co-offender – whether cumulative nature of
sentence has consequence of the totality of the sentence being
oppressive or unreasonable – whether sentence imposed
manifestly excessive
COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R J Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 19th of February 2003 to one count of armed robbery in company, one count of attempted armed robbery in company, one count of armed robbery and a final count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence. The effective head sentence imposed was 8 years imprisonment cumulative on the other current sentence.

The circumstances in which those offences came to be committed are of material relevance to the issue of sentence which is in issue in this application. The applicant had been convicted

on the 16th of March 1999 of the offence of dangerous
operation of a vehicle whilst adversely affected causing
death. He was then sentenced to six years imprisonment.

Whilst serving that term of imprisonment, he was temporarily released into the community; it appears that pursuant to a work scheme he was given leave of absence. In effect he escaped because he did not return to prison as required by the terms of his temporary release.

He says in his statement to the Court that he became aware that a female friend was likely to be evicted from her residence because of some financial difficulty. He said it was because of that he failed to return to prison as required. It was against that background that, on the 16th of October 2000, the offences in question were committed.

Counts 1 and 2, that of armed robbery in company and attempted armed robbery in company, involved the applicant and a male friend entering a pizza shop at Springwood at about 9.00 p.m. on that date. The applicant was armed with a sawn-off .22 rifle. Both men had balaclavas or items of clothing over their…

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 Bealing

Details

AGLC: R v Bealing [2003] QCA 323
Case: [2003] QCA 323
Decision Date: 25/07/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bealing involved the defendant, Bealing, who was convicted of criminal offences and subsequently sentenced by the lower court. The central issue in this case was the defendant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial court. The appeal was brought before the court to challenge the severity and appropriateness of the sentence given the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial court had exercised its sentencing discretion appropriately and whether the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the crime committed.

The court considered various factors in reaching its decision, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of sentencing. It examined the trial judge's reasoning and the evidence presented during the sentencing hearing. The court also took into account the defendant's personal circumstances, such as his background, age, and any mitigating factors that might have influenced the sentencing decision. The appeal court applied a rigorous standard of review to ensure that the sentence was not only legally sound but also aligned with the overarching principles of justice and proportionality in criminal sentencing.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and exercised their sentencing discretion within the bounds of legal principles. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the offence committed and the circumstances of the offender. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. This decision underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and reinforced the principle that appellate courts should intervene only in cases where there is a clear error in the exercise of that discretion.

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 Bealing [2003] QCA 323
PARTIES:	R v BEALING, Darren James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 59 of 2003 DC No 514 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED EX	25 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 July 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted on armed robbery offences committed whilst on community release – where sentenced to eight years imprisonment cumulative on other current sentence – where applicant had significant criminal history – whether disparity with sentence of co-offender – whether cumulative nature of sentence has consequence of the totality of the sentence being oppressive or unreasonable – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R J Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent