R v Brown

Case [2013] QCA 185


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2013] QCA 185

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Imelda Joyce
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 338 of 2012
DC No 410 of 2012
DC No 435 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

16 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 May 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   The sentences imposed on the indictment below are set aside, and substitute a sentence of 203 days imprisonment in respect of each with the declaration that the applicant has already served 203 days, between 4 February 2012 and 3 April 2012, and between 30 April 2012 and 19 September 2012, on each of those sentences.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of serious assault, the first of which involved punching a police officer and the second spitting at him – where the applicant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment in respect of the first charge, and 15 months imprisonment in respect of the second, to be served concurrently – where the sentences were suspended after 203 days, which the applicant had already served in pre-sentence custody – where the applicant, a middle-aged woman in poor health, was from a disadvantaged background, had no relevant criminal history and had entered an early plea of guilty – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 340(b)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 790(1)

R v Barry[2007] QCA 48, cited
R v Hamilton[2006] QCA 122, cited
R v Hawton[2009] QCA 248, cited
R v Holden[2006] QCA 416, cited
R v Juric[2003] QCA 132,cited
R v King (2008) 179 A Crim R 600; [2008] QCA 1, cited
R v Laskus[1996] QCA 120, cited
R v McLean (2011) 212 A Crim R 199, [2011] QCA 218, cited
R v Reuben[2001] QCA 322, cited

COUNSEL:

F D Richards for the applicant
R W Griffith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. HOLMES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to a series of offences committed in a confrontation with police. They consisted of two counts of serious assault, contrary to s 340(b) of the Criminal Code, on one of which she was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and the other, 15 months imprisonment, and three summary charges: assaulting police[1] (brought under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000) and committing a public nuisance, in respect of each of which she was sentenced to one month…

Continue reading R v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Brown [2013] QCA 185
Case
[2013] QCA 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a middle-aged woman in poor health from a disadvantaged background with no relevant criminal history, pleaded guilty to two counts of serious assault against a police officer. The first count involved punching the officer, while the second involved spitting at him. She was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the first count and 15 months for the second, to be served concurrently. After serving 203 days in pre-sentence custody, the sentences were suspended. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive.

The court was required to decide whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's health, background, lack of criminal history, and her early plea of guilty. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment and deterrence, as well as the circumstances of the applicant. The court also had to assess whether the sentences were proportionate to the offences committed and whether there were any other relevant factors that warranted a different outcome.

The court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. It took into account the applicant's health, background, and lack of criminal history, as well as her early plea of guilty. The court concluded that the sentences did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the applicant and were disproportionate to the offences committed. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original sentences and substituting a sentence of 203 days imprisonment for each count, with a declaration that the applicant had already served that time in pre-sentence custody.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. The appeal is allowed. The sentences imposed on the indictment are set aside, and substitute a sentence of 203 days imprisonment in respect of each count, with the declaration that the applicant has already served 203 days, between 4 February 2012 and 3 April 2012, and between 30 April 2012 and 19 September 2012, on each of those sentences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The sentences imposed on the indictment below are set aside, and substitute a sentence of 203 days imprisonment in respect of each with the declaration that the applicant has already served 203 days, between 4 February 2012 and 3 April 2012, and between 30 April 2012 and 19 September 2012, on each of those sentences.

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.