R v Bonner - [1997] QCA 394

[1997] QCA 394

COURT OF APPEAL
PINCUS JA
LEE J

CULLINANE J

CA No 253 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

PAUL JAMES BONNER

BRISBANE
..DATE 15/10/97
151097 T4-5/JAP/20 M/T COA 232/97
PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against
sentence. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to
a charge that on 6 May 1988, at the Gold Coast in the State of
Queensland, he unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to one
Randall; he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. At the
sentence hearing the judge was told that the applicant was hired
by one Kirby, to come to Queensland and inflict serious bodily
injury upon Randall, who was a business competitor of Kirby.
The judge was told that Randall was alone in his office about
5.00 p.m. on 6 May 1988 when he was attacked from behind by an
assailant whom he did not see and who turns out to be the
applicant. The victim received head injuries, including a
laceration 12 centimetres long over his forehead and a compound
fracture of the frontal bone. There were also contusions in the
region of both eyes, a laceration behind an ear and rib
fractures.

The police came to suspect that it was the applicant who had committed this assault, but when interviewed in 1995 he denied this. In the course of further investigations the police obtained evidence from a Mrs Pryor, of an incriminating statement by the applicant, of which she made a diary note. The applicant rang Mrs Pryor and told her of the police inquiry and said that he was "fucked if they, the police, got hold of those diaries". In 1996 one Vogler told police that Kirby had asked him whether he would organise for Randall to be stood over and leave the Gold Coast. Vogler obtained the applicant's address, according to the prosecutor's statements, and contacted the applicant who demanded a fee of $2,000 plus an air fare to the Gold Coast, one way. Kirby would not agree and insisted on 151097 T4-5/JAP/20 M/T COA 232/97

paying the air fares only in advance, with the rest to be paid later; that is what happened. Vogler, in consultation with the applicant and Kirby, arranged for the assault to take place. Vogler and the applicant went to Kirby's residence and on the way the applicant purchased a pick handle, telling Vogler, "I'll use this to give this bloke a hiding." The applicant was given money at Kirby's residence and Kirby told the applicant he did not care what the applicant did: "break his legs, break his bones". Kirby asked the applicant what he was going to use and the applicant said, "A pick handle, it does the most damage." Later that day, the prosecutor said, one Roberts picked the applicant up from Vogler's residence and Roberts and the applicant were away for about an hour and a half. When they returned they said "It's all finished." The prosecutor told the judge there was some…

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 Bonner

Details

AGLC: R v Bonner [1997] QCA 394
Case: [1997] QCA 394
Decision Date: 15/10/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bonner, the Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant, Paul James Bonner, had pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm on Randall on 6 May 1988 at the Gold Coast in Queensland. The District Court judge sentenced the applicant to eight years imprisonment after hearing that the attack was arranged by Kirby, a business competitor of Randall, who hired the applicant to inflict serious injury. The judge took into account the severity of the assault, the applicant's criminal history, and his lack of cooperation with the police. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive compared to the sentence given to Vogler, a co-offender who received a wholly suspended sentence.

The Court of Appeal, led by Pincus JA, examined the principles of manifest disparity as discussed in the High Court case of Lowe and the Court's decision in Del Arco. They also considered the reasoning in Cox, where it was held that appeal courts should only intervene if there is a sufficiently good reason to do so. The Court found that the judge was right to impose an eight-year sentence on the applicant, as it was not manifestly excessive and was warranted by the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence. Although there was a significant difference in the sentences of the applicant and Vogler, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed on the applicant was appropriate and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Lee J and Cullinane J concurred with this decision.

Orders