R v Beauchamp - [2002] QCA 238

[2002] QCA 238

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA

CA No 130 of 2002

THE QUEEN

BARRY GEORGE BEAUCHAMP Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 01/07/2002

JUDGMENT

1

01072002 T9/DR/CAT28 M/T COA152/2002

WILLIAMS JA: On the 30th of April 2002 the applicant

pleaded guilty to two counts on an indictment which had been

presented to the District Court, Townsville. Count 1 was in

these terms: that on the 20th day of October 2001 at

Townsville he entered the dwelling house of Helen Flora

Kedub with intent to commit an indictable offence and was

armed with a dangerous weapon. The second count was that on

that date he unlawfully assaulted Helen Flora Kedub.

Thereafter counsel appearing for the prosecution outlined

the circumstances of the offence to the learned sentencing

Judge. In the course of doing that he did not expressly

identify the indictable offence which the Crown alleged the

applicant intended to commit when he entered the dwelling.

The circumstances of the offence as outlined by the

prosecutor were as follows: a house had been divided into

two separate units, the applicant residing in one and the

complainant in the other. They had little contact and could

not be regarded as close neighbours. There was an agreement

that the applicant would mow the lawn in return for the use

of the complainant's washing machine. Apparently the

washing machine broke down and was not fixed. In

consequence the applicant began mowing only his side of the

residence. That created some tension between them.

The offence occurred relatively early in the morning but it

appears that the applicant had been drinking quite heavily.
The complainant had risen early to feed some of her pets and

2 JUDGMENT

01072002 T9/DR/CAT28 M/T COA152/2002

then returned to bed leaving her back door ajar. She was

awoken by feeling something on her bed. She saw the

applicant sitting on the bed. At that stage he touched her

on the right shoulder.

That was identified by the prosecution as the offence of

unlawful assault. She was startled and scared. She rolled

out of bed and at that stage saw that the applicant was

naked and was holding a large black‑handled knife with a

curved blade. She screamed. The applicant then walked out

of the flat with a small towel wrapped around his waist. As

he was leaving he apparently said words to the effect, "Your

door was open. Why don't you let me use your washing

machine and I'll mow the whole lawn?"

When counsel for the applicant outlined the circumstances of

the offence from the applicant's point of view he indicated

in very clear terms that the applicant's plea was on the

basis his intent in entering the complainant's residence was

to steal some detergent.

The sentence in fact imposed was 18 months' imprisonment

suspended after six months with an operational period of two

years. That sentence was imposed on count 1. On count 2

there was a sentence of three months' imprisonment with no

recommendation.

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 Beauchamp

Details

AGLC: R v Beauchamp [2002] QCA 238
Case: [2002] QCA 238
Decision Date: 1 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Beauchamp, the applicant, Barry George Beauchamp, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, Townsville. The applicant had pleaded guilty to two counts: entering the dwelling of Helen Flora Kedub with intent to commit an indictable offence and being armed with a dangerous weapon, and unlawfully assaulting Helen Flora Kedub. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances of the case and the applicant's plea of intent to steal detergent rather than commit an assault. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if the District Court's failure to clearly identify the specific offence the applicant intended to commit affected the appropriateness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was indeed manifestly excessive. The reasoning of the Court was that the District Court did not clearly identify the specific indictable offence the applicant intended to commit, which had a significant impact on the sentencing. The Court concluded that the applicant's intent was to steal detergent, not to assault the complainant, and his intoxicated state explained the presence of a knife and his attire. Given these circumstances, a custodial sentence of a short duration was deemed appropriate. The Court varied the sentence by ordering it to be suspended after 24 days in custody for the first count and imposing a 24-day imprisonment for the second count. The Court granted the appeal, allowed it, and varied the sentence as described.

Orders