R v Bennett - [2016] QCA 31

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bennett [2016] QCA 31

PARTIES:

R
v
BENNETT, Mitchell Leo
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 191 of 2015
DC No 372 of 2014
DC No 470 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Sentence: 6 August 2015

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2016

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two indictable offences, attempted armed robbery with personal violence and unlawful grievous bodily harm – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to 15 summary charges – where the summary charges included stealing, fraud, receiving tainted property and drug-related offences – where the complainant was a 55 year old woman – where the applicant struck the complainant on the back of her head repeatedly with a length of pipe – where the complainant suffered extensive injuries, including a compound and comminuted fracture to her left ulna – where the applicant admitted to having taken seven unprescribed Xanax tablets and also drunk a bottle of Jack Daniels on the night of the indictable offences – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history with several other offences involving violence and property – where the applicant acknowledged the link between his criminal offending and his substance abuse – where the applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of eight years imprisonment with serious violent offence declarations for the two indictable offences – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 320, s 412(3)

R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183; [1999] QCA 206, cited
R v Gadd[2013] QCA 242, cited

COUNSEL:

H C Fong for the applicant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant pleaded guilty on 6 August 2015 to two indictable offences: attempted armed robbery with personal violence and unlawful grievous bodily harm. He also pleaded guilty to summary charges: five counts of stealing, four counts of fraud, receiving tainted property, and four drug-related offences. He was sentenced on each indictable offence to eight years imprisonment with each declared a serious violent offence. He was also sentenced to 12 months concurrent imprisonment on each summary offence. A period of 565 days was declared as time served under the sentence. He has applied for leave to appeal against sentence, contending that an eight year sentence combined with serious violent offence declarations on the indictable offences is manifestly excessive.

Antecedents

The applicant was 28 at the time of the commission of the indictable offences and…

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 Bennett

Details

AGLC: R v Bennett [2016] QCA 31
Case: [2016] QCA 31
Decision Date: 23 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case pleaded guilty to two indictable offences and 15 summary charges. The indictable offences were attempted armed robbery with personal violence and unlawful grievous bodily harm, while the summary charges included various property and drug-related offences. The victim, a 55-year-old woman, suffered significant injuries as a result of the applicant's actions, including a compound and comminuted fracture to her left ulna. The applicant admitted to having consumed a large quantity of alcohol and unprescribed Xanax on the night of the offences. The applicant had a history of criminal behaviour, particularly involving violence and property, and recognised the correlation between his offending and substance abuse.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive. The applicant's legal team argued that the sentence of eight years imprisonment with serious violent offence declarations was too harsh given the circumstances. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the severity of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the impact of his substance abuse on his offending behaviour. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence was disproportionate in light of the mitigating factors and whether it was appropriate to interfere with the sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the severity of the offences and the significant injuries inflicted on the victim. It also took into account the applicant's extensive criminal history and the link between his offending and substance abuse. However, the court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and that there were no grounds for interference. The court considered that the sentence appropriately reflected the need to protect the community and deter the applicant from future criminal conduct. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal is 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 Bennett [2016] QCA 31
PARTIES:	R v BENNETT, Mitchell Leo (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 191 of 2015 DC No 372 of 2014 DC No 470 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Sentence: 6 August 2015
DELIVERED ON:	23 February 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2016
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two indictable offences, attempted armed robbery with personal violence and unlawful grievous bodily harm – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to 15 summary charges – where the summary charges included stealing, fraud, receiving tainted property and drug-related offences – where the complainant was a 55 year old woman – where the applicant struck the complainant on the back of her head repeatedly with a length of pipe – where the complainant suffered extensive injuries, including a compound and comminuted fracture to her left ulna – where the applicant admitted to having taken seven unprescribed Xanax tablets and also drunk a bottle of Jack Daniels on the night of the indictable offences – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history with several other offences involving violence and property – where the applicant acknowledged the link between his criminal offending and his substance abuse – where the applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of eight years imprisonment with serious violent offence declarations for the two indictable offences – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 320, s 412(3) R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183; [1999] QCA 206, cited R v Gadd[2013] QCA 242, cited
COUNSEL:	H C Fong for the applicant S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent