R v Bell - [2000] QCA 485

[2000] QCA 485

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
WILLIAMS J
CULLINANE J

CA No 235 of 2000

THE QUEEN

PERRY EDWARD BELL Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/11/2000

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS J: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against sentences imposed on the respondent in the District Court at Mt Isa. There were at that time two indictments before the Court.

The first indictment alleged that on 7 December the respondent committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and secondly that on
16 December 1999 he committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The second indictment alleged a series of offences on 16 June 2000. Count 1, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. Count 2, unlawful wounding. Count 3, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. Count 4, assault occasioning bodily harm. Count 5, assault occasioning bodily harm.

With respect to each of the charges on the two indictments the complainant was the same person, namely, the respondent's de facto spouse Joanee Jennifer Koorabubba. The respondent pleaded guilty to each of those offences. It is necessary to outline briefly the facts relating to each count.

Count 1 on the first indictment involved an assault on the complainant with a hammer because she refused to give the respondent some cigarettes. On that occasion she suffered lacerations to her ankles, arms and legs.

Count 2 related to an incident where the respondent woke up the complainant, punched her in the mouth a number of times, knocked her to the ground and applied force to her throat in a choking manner. The complainant ran away but the respondent threw a brick at her causing a wound which required a number of stitches.

On the second indictment Count 1 related to an incident when the respondent struck the complainant on the head with a billy can causing a laceration which required to be sutured. A short while later the respondent picked up a kitchen knife and swung it at the complainant. She put up her hands to defend herself and received lacerations to her hands. The lacerations included two one-centimetre long cuts. That constituted count 2.

Thereafter, the respondent picked up a brick and hit the complainant on the right shoulder. That was the subject of count 3. Shortly thereafter the respondent pushed the complainant onto the road and started kicking her in the head and all over the body. She was kicked a number of times causing bruising. She could not lie on her right side that night whilst trying to sleep. That latter incident was the subject of count 4.

Some four to five hours later another incident occurred when the respondent grabbed the complainant around the throat with his right hand, grabbed her windpipe to stop her from screaming and applied what was described as a great degree of force. That was the subject of count 5.

The respondent has a bad criminal record involving assaults on females. There are - and I will refer…

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 Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2000] QCA 485
Case: [2000] QCA 485
Decision Date: 23/11/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bell, the Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentences imposed on the respondent, Perry Edward Bell, by the District Court at Mount Isa. The respondent had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, including instances where he used a weapon, against his de facto spouse, Joanee Jennifer Koorabubba. The offenses occurred on separate dates in December 1999 and June 2000, with the respondent having a history of domestic violence against Ms. Koorabubba and other female partners. The District Court sentenced Bell to two years for each of the three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, and one year for each of the other counts, with a recommendation for parole after nine months of the two-year terms.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were adequate, given the severity and persistence of the respondent's criminal behaviour. The appeal hinged on the argument that the sentences did not reflect the seriousness of the offenses or the respondent's extensive history of domestic violence, especially considering that the June 2000 offenses occurred during the operational period of a previously suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the protection of the community, in light of the respondent's pattern of violent behaviour towards his female partners.

The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, found that the sentences imposed by the District Court were inadequate. They noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account the respondent's guilty pleas, his chronic alcoholism, and the remote location of the offenses, but had not sufficiently emphasised the persistent nature of the respondent's violent conduct towards his de facto spouse. The Court referenced previous decisions where similar considerations led to harsher sentences for persistent offenders. Ultimately, the Court decided to increase the sentences for the three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed to three and a half years each, with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving 18 months. The sentences for the other counts remained unchanged. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentences for the specified counts, and substituted new sentences as outlined.

Orders