R v Bolton; Ex parte - [2014] QCA 128

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 128

PARTIES:

R
v
BOLTON, Garry Arthur
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 172 of 2013
SC No 238 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes, Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of rape, four counts of supplying dangerous drugs with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug – where the respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the rape offences, suspended after a period of two years with an operational period of five years – where offences were extremely serious with aggravating features including violation of minors and supply of drugs to them – where the appellant contends that the sentence was rendered unreasonable by the sentencing judge's failure to declare the offences serious violent offences under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 or to make another order effectively postponing the respondent’s release – where the prosecutor at first instance advocated for the sentence imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B

R v AAD[2008] QCA 4, cited
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, extended
R v Bull[2012] QCA 74, considered
R v DBC; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2012] QCA 203, cited
R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 63, considered
R v Lee[2012] QCA 313;cited
R v Lee[2012] QCA 239, cited
R v M[2003] QCA 443, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, followed

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan QC for the appellant
J J Allen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: The respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of rape, four counts of supplying dangerous drugs with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after a period of two years with an operational period of five years, in respect of the rape charges; 18 months imprisonment in respect of each of the supply charges; three months imprisonment in respect of the count of possessing a thing; and six months imprisonment in…

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 Bolton; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 128
Case: [2014] QCA 128
Decision Date: 3 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an appeal by the appellant against a sentence imposed on the respondent by the sentencing judge. The respondent had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including counts of rape, supplying dangerous drugs, and possessing a thing used in connection with possessing a dangerous drug. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the sentence being suspended after two years, allowing for an operational period of five years. The appellant argues that the sentence was manifestly inadequate due to the sentencing judge’s failure to declare the offences as serious violent offences under section 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, and the absence of an order effectively postponing the respondent’s release.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences committed. The court had to consider the nature of the offences, which included the violation of minors and the supply of drugs to them, alongside the potential impact of classifying the offences as serious violent offences and the implications of such a classification on the sentence.

The court, upon reviewing the case, found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances and the seriousness of the offences. The court observed that the prosecutor had advocated for the sentence imposed at first instance, suggesting that the sentence was appropriate in the context of the facts presented. The court further determined that the sentencing judge's approach did not result in a manifestly inadequate sentence, as the appellant had suggested. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate.

The final order of the court was that the appeal be dismissed, upholding the sentence as imposed by the original sentencing judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 128
PARTIES:	R v BOLTON, Garry Arthur (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 172 of 2013 SC No 238 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes, Fraser and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of rape, four counts of supplying dangerous drugs with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug – where the respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the rape offences, suspended after a period of two years with an operational period of five years – where offences were extremely serious with aggravating features including violation of minors and supply of drugs to them – where the appellant contends that the sentence was rendered unreasonable by the sentencing judge's failure to declare the offences serious violent offences under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 or to make another order effectively postponing the respondent’s release – where the prosecutor at first instance advocated for the sentence imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B R v AAD[2008] QCA 4, cited R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, extended R v Bull[2012] QCA 74, considered R v DBC; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2012] QCA 203, cited R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 63, considered R v Lee[2012] QCA 313;cited R v Lee[2012] QCA 239, cited R v M[2003] QCA 443, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, followed
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan QC for the appellant J J Allen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent