R v Bowe; R v Taylor - [2004] QCA 414

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bowe; R v Taylor [2004] QCA 414

PARTIES:

R
v
BOWE, Dion Brett
(applicant)

R
v
TAYLOR, Jeffrey John
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 271 of 2004
CA No 272 of 2004
DC No 267 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

3 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2004

JUDGES:

Davies and McPherson JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Each application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where the applicants were both convicted of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, wilful damage and other offences - where each applicant was effectively sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment - where the offences involved entering the home of the complainant uninvited, verbal and physical abuse to the complainant and damage to his property - whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive in the circumstances

R v Brelsford [1995] QCA 594; CA No 301 of 1995, 14 September 1995, cited

R v Frazer [1997] QCA 306; CA No 252 of 1997, 5 August 1997, cited

R v Hardman [2001] QCA 15; CA No 312 of 2000, 6 February 2001, cited

R v Houghton and Genrich [1998] QCA 137; CA No 424 of 1997, CA No 425 of 1997, 26 February 1998, cited

R v Williamson [1996] QCA 548; CA No 392 of 1996, 1 November 1996, cited

COUNSEL:

Each applicant appeared on his own behalf
T A Fuller for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Each applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: The applicants were each convicted after a trial in the District Court on 15 July 2004 of the offences of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company and wilful damage. Bowe was also convicted of the additional offences of assault and wilful damage. Each was sentenced on the same day to two and a half years imprisonment in respect of the offences of burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, and to twelve months imprisonment for the offence of wilful damage. Bowe was also sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for each of the additional offences of assault and wilful damage. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

Stephen Yelds had been involved for three years in an intimate relationship with Patricia Carroll who had formerly been in a similar relationship with Bowe. Bowe was the father of Ms Carroll's daughter. During his relationship with Ms Carroll, Mr Yelds had met Mr Bowe a number of times. He had not met Taylor before 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 Bowe; R v Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Bowe; R v Taylor [2004] QCA 414
Case: [2004] QCA 414
Decision Date: 3 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bowe and R v Taylor, the applicants were convicted of multiple offences including burglary with aggravating circumstances, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company, and wilful damage. Both applicants were sentenced to a total of two and a half years imprisonment. The applicants sought leave to appeal against their sentences, contending that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offences. The nature of the offences involved the applicants entering the complainant's home uninvited, subjecting the complainant to verbal and physical abuse, and causing damage to his property.

The court was required to consider the principles governing sentencing, particularly focusing on whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court needed to evaluate the severity of the offences, the culpability of the applicants, and the appropriateness of the sentences in light of the aggravating factors present. The applicants argued that the sentences were disproportionately harsh, taking into account the non-violent nature of the offences and the absence of prior criminal records.

The court examined the sentences imposed and the relevant legal principles, referring to precedents such as R v Brelsford, R v Frazer, R v Hardman, R v Houghton and Genrich, and R v Williamson. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal against the sentences, affirming the sentences imposed by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Bowe; R v Taylor [2004] QCA 414
PARTIES:	R v BOWE, Dion Brett (applicant) R v TAYLOR, Jeffrey John (applicant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 271 of 2004 CA No 272 of 2004 DC No 267 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	3 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 November 2004
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Each application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where the applicants were both convicted of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, wilful damage and other offences - where each applicant was effectively sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment - where the offences involved entering the home of the complainant uninvited, verbal and physical abuse to the complainant and damage to his property - whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive in the circumstances R v Brelsford [1995] QCA 594; CA No 301 of 1995, 14 September 1995, cited R v Frazer [1997] QCA 306; CA No 252 of 1997, 5 August 1997, cited R v Hardman [2001] QCA 15; CA No 312 of 2000, 6 February 2001, cited R v Houghton and Genrich [1998] QCA 137; CA No 424 of 1997, CA No 425 of 1997, 26 February 1998, cited R v Williamson [1996] QCA 548; CA No 392 of 1996, 1 November 1996, cited
COUNSEL:	Each applicant appeared on his own behalf T A Fuller for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Each applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent