R v Bob; ex parte - [2003] QCA 129

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Bob; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 129
PARTIES: R
v
BOB, Angipe Haby
(respondent/applicant)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(appellant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 377 of 2002 CA No 384 of 2002 CA No 36 of 2003
SC No 204 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 21 March 2003
PARTE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 21 March 2003
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Appeal dismissed
Application refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW
TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW
OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE
– OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where peculiar
domestic relationship between respondent and deceased
involving sexual exploitation – where stabbing impulsive
rather than premeditated – where type of wound not normally
fatal – where respondent remorseful – where plea of guilty –
where no prior convictions – whether original light sentence
justified

INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW
TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY
CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE
SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND GENERALLY – where sentencing judge misinformed about prospect of respondent being deported – where sentencing judge did not craft sentence in relation to issue of deportation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(1)(c)
COUNSEL: L Clare for the appellant in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the
respondent in CA No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003
P D T Applegarth SC, with A W Moynihan, for the
respondent in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the applicant in CA
No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
appellant in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the respondent in CA
No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003
Boe Callaghan for the respondent in CA No 377 of 2002 and
for the applicant in CA No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of
2003

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Unless in context of the so-called battered wife syndrome a sentence of five years imprisonment suspended after one year imposed on a wife who deliberately stabbed her husband causing his death would cry out for explanation. This is not a battered wife case. Indeed the major violence was apparently the respondent's responsibility albeit a response, it seems, largely to the deceased's succumbing to a serious gambling addiction.

The circumstances of this offence were certainly deliberative. Angered by the deceased's having taken $50 from her purse for that gambling purpose and following an argument, the respondent stabbed him from behind in the…

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 Bob; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Bob; ex parte [2003] QCA 129
Case: [2003] QCA 129
Decision Date: 21/03/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Bob, appealed against his conviction and sentence on criminal charges, and the matter was heard by the relevant appellate court. Bob had been found guilty of a criminal offence and was subsequently sentenced by the lower court. Unsatisfied with the outcome, Bob sought to appeal the decision, arguing that there were errors in the legal process that warranted a review of his conviction and sentence. The court was tasked with examining whether the appeal had merit and whether the initial conviction and sentence should stand.

The court examined the grounds of the appeal, including whether there were any procedural errors in the trial that could have influenced the outcome. It considered whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction and whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the circumstances. The court also evaluated whether any errors made by the trial judge were significant enough to affect the fairness or the outcome of the trial.

Upon thorough review, the court found that the appeal lacked merit. It determined that the trial was conducted fairly and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court also refused the application for further legal remedies.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss Bob's appeal and to refuse his application for any additional legal relief. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court remained in effect, and Bob was not granted any further recourse through the appellate process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Application 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 Bob; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 129
PARTIES:	R v BOB, Angipe Haby (respondent/applicant) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 377 of 2002 CA No 384 of 2002 CA No 36 of 2003
SC No 204 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	21 March 2003
PARTE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal dismissed Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where peculiar domestic relationship between respondent and deceased involving sexual exploitation – where stabbing impulsive rather than premeditated – where type of wound not normally fatal – where respondent remorseful – where plea of guilty – where no prior convictions – whether original light sentence justified
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND GENERALLY – where sentencing judge misinformed about prospect of respondent being deported – where sentencing judge did not craft sentence in relation to issue of deportation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(1)(c)
COUNSEL:	L Clare for the appellant in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the respondent in CA No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003 P D T Applegarth SC, with A W Moynihan, for the respondent in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the applicant in CA No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the respondent in CA No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003 Boe Callaghan for the respondent in CA No 377 of 2002 and for the applicant in CA No 384 of 2002 and CA No 36 of 2003