R v Betts - [2011] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Betts [2011] QCA 244

PARTIES:

R
v
BETTS, Daniel Patrick
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 152 of 2011
DC No 78 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

20 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2011

JUDGES:

Muir JA and Margaret Wilson AJA and North 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was playing golf with the complainant – where the applicant’s form was poor and he became agitated – where the applicant slammed the golf club then spun 180 degrees and threw it – where the complainant was struck on the head and knocked out – where the complainant was left permanently and severely disabled – where the case proceeded on the basis of criminal negligence in the handling of the golf club – where the applicant was remorseful and pleaded guilty at an early stage – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of two years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 289

R v Clark (2007) 171 A Crim R 532; [2007] QCA 168, considered
R v Martin [2002] QCA 201, considered
R v Wing[2007] QCA 138, considered

COUNSEL:

S T Courtney for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Chelsea Emery & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Margaret Wilson AJA.

MARGARET WILSON AJA: On 6 June 2011 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of two years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground it was manifestly excessive. He has now served almost three months of the sentence. He asks the court to grant his application, to allow his appeal and to suspend the sentence forthwith.

The facts

The offence was committed on 13 December 2009.

The applicant was playing golf with the complainant, the complainant’s father and another man Schultz. The applicant’s two small boys were with them. The applicant, the complainant and the complainant’s father were drinking alcohol during the round. The applicant’s form was poor, and he became increasingly agitated as the round progressed, and he began swearing and banging his club on the ground when he played a bad shot. They reached the sixth hole…

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 Betts

Details

AGLC: R v Betts [2011] QCA 244
Case: [2011] QCA 244
Decision Date: 20 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Betts involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant while playing golf. The applicant, in a moment of frustration over his poor form, threw a golf club at the complainant, striking him on the head and causing severe, permanent disability. The court proceeded on the basis that the act was one of criminal negligence in handling the golf club. The applicant showed remorse and entered a guilty plea early in the proceedings. The sentence imposed was two years imprisonment, suspended after six months, with an operational period of two years. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the applicant, and the principles of sentencing relevant to cases of criminal negligence. The court also needed to weigh the applicant's remorse and early guilty plea against the severity of the consequences of the offence.

The court examined the facts of the case and the mitigating factors presented. It noted the applicant's remorse, early guilty plea, and lack of prior criminal history. However, the court also considered the gravity of the offence, the severe and permanent disability inflicted on the complainant, and the public interest in deterring similar conduct. The court concluded that while the sentence was undoubtedly severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court refused the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence, upholding the original sentencing decision. The reasoning focused on the balance between the severity of the consequences of the offence and the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering both the culpability of the offender and the harm caused to the victim in sentencing matters.

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 Betts [2011] QCA 244
PARTIES:	R v BETTS, Daniel Patrick (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 152 of 2011 DC No 78 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	20 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 September 2011
JUDGES:	Muir JA and Margaret Wilson AJA and North 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was playing golf with the complainant – where the applicant’s form was poor and he became agitated – where the applicant slammed the golf club then spun 180 degrees and threw it – where the complainant was struck on the head and knocked out – where the complainant was left permanently and severely disabled – where the case proceeded on the basis of criminal negligence in the handling of the golf club – where the applicant was remorseful and pleaded guilty at an early stage – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of two years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 289 R v Clark (2007) 171 A Crim R 532; [2007] QCA 168, considered R v Martin [2002] QCA 201, considered R v Wing[2007] QCA 138, considered
COUNSEL:	S T Courtney for the applicant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Chelsea Emery & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent