R v Buggy

Case [2024] QCA 80

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Buggy [2024] QCA 80

PARTIES:

R
v
BUGGY, Israel Colin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 131 of 2023
DC No 243 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Sentence: 10 July 2023 (Cash KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2024

JUDGES:

Dalton and Flanagan JJA and Cooper J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of malicious act with intent to do grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration – where the applicant submitted that the combined effect of the term of imprisonment alongside the serious violent offence declaration makes the sentence manifestly excessive – where the applicant submitted that the full context of the offending, combined with the applicant’s early guilty plea and the lack of long-term injury to the complainant justified a sentencing range beginning at six years’ imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182, s 184
Criminal Code (Qld), s 317, s 320

R v Akol[2020] QCA 50, considered
R v Bryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Edwards [2012] QCA 117, considered
R v Free; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, applied
R v Kuhn[2022] QCA 247, considered
R v MCT[2018] QCA 189, followed
R v O’Malley[2019] QCA 130, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, followed
R v Piper[2015] QCA 129, considered
R v Thomason; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Whittaker[2011] QCA 237, considered

COUNSEL: 

M L Longhurst for the applicant
C M Cook for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gatenby Criminal Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. DALTON JA:  I agree with the order proposed by Cooper J and with his reasons.

  2. FLANAGAN JA:  I agree with Cooper J.

  3. COOPER J:  The applicant pleaded guilty on 10 July 2023 to one count of malicious act with intent to do grievous bodily harm.  He was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years.  A period of 658 days of pre-sentence custody was declared to be time already served under the sentence.  A declaration was also made that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violent offence, with the result that he will not be eligible for parole until he has served 80 per cent of the sentence.[1]

    [1]Corrective Services Act2006 (Qld), s 182.

  4. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against…

Continue reading R v Buggy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Buggy [2024] QCA 80
Case
[2024] QCA 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Buggy, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of malicious act with intent to do grievous bodily harm, appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The applicant was sentenced to a term of seven years’ imprisonment, accompanied by a declaration that the offence was a serious violent offence. The applicant argued that the combined effect of the prison term and the declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. They contended that, considering the full context of the offending, their early guilty plea, and the absence of long-term injury to the complainant, a more appropriate starting point for sentencing would be six years’ imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence and are proportionate to the circumstances. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was inadequate in terms of deterrence and denunciation, and whether there were any mitigating factors that warranted a lesser sentence. The applicant’s argument hinged on the combined impact of the length of the prison term and the serious violent offence declaration, which they claimed rendered the sentence disproportionate.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant’s early guilty plea, and the lack of serious injury to the complainant. The court considered that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and served the purposes of punishment, including general and specific deterrence. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the offending and took into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.