R v C - [2000] QCA 154

[2000] QCA 154

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J

CA No 34 of 2000

THE QUEEN

C Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/05/2000

JUDGMENT

MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to a number of offences committed on his de facto wife on two separate days. At the time he was on bail pending appeal in respect of a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for offences of aggravated indecently dealing with a 12 year old step-daughter of a previous relationship. The appeal was subsequently dismissed and a warrant was issued on or about 9 July 1999 in respect of that matter.

The sentences for the offences which we are considering were made cumulative on the imprisonment that the applicant was serving under the earlier sentences. The applicant and the present complainant had been in a relationship for about six months and she was about 20 or 21 weeks pregnant.

The first offence, assault occasioning bodily harm, occurred when the applicant, who was heavily intoxicated, took offence at being asked to roll the complainant a cigarette, grabbed the complainant by the legs and caused her to fall from the bed on which she was sitting. She hit the dressing table with her knee in the course of doing so and suffered discomfort for a few days.

A week later, after a day of sporadic arguments, the complainant walked out of the matrimonial home while the applicant was away, leaving a note which he says he interpreted as a threat to harm herself and her unborn child. Some hours later she returned.

Although the applicant says that what subsequently happened was a product of his relief and anxiety about her whereabouts, he immediately questioned her fidelity and assaulted her by punching and slapping her and pushing her against the wall. That was count 4.

Then he dragged her by the hair into another room and indecently assaulted her, allegedly to find out if she had had sex with anyone. That was count 5.

He then left the room after threatening her and after hitting things and yelling abuse in another room. He returned and punched her repeatedly again. That was count 6.

He went out of the room again and then returned and began throttling her and trying to smother her with a pillow. He also slapped her. That was count 7.

He left the room again but returned and threatened to strike her with an ash tray and did slap her with his hand. That formed count 8.

He then left the room again and came back with a pick handle which he used to hit her on the backside and thighs. Then he grabbed her hair and when she was in a sitting position he aimed a blow with the pick handle at her head which she intercepted by raising her hand which was hurt in the course of intercepting the blow. That was count 9.

He then left the room again but returned and after accusing her of…

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 C

Details

AGLC: R v C [2000] QCA 154
Case: [2000] QCA 154
Decision Date: 03/05/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v C, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple domestic violence offences against his de facto wife, who was pregnant at the time. The offences occurred over two separate incidents, including assault occasioning bodily harm, aggravated indecent assault, and other forms of assault and abuse. The applicant was already on bail pending appeal for a prior offence involving indecent assault on a child. The sentencing judge imposed a cumulative sentence of three years for the most serious offences, to be served in addition to the applicant's existing sentences.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge did not adequately justify the departure from the Crown prosecutor's submission of a two and a half year cumulative sentence. The applicant contended that insufficient weight was given to the early plea of guilty, the relationship between the parties, and the applicant's personal circumstances, including his troubled family background and good work history. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge properly considered the severity and prolonged nature of the violence and abuse, and the need for deterrence given the applicant's criminal history.

The court held that the sentencing judge was not bound by the Crown prosecutor's submissions and had foreshadowed a longer sentence. The court found that the prolonged and vicious nature of the offences, committed while the applicant was on bail for a similar offence, justified the sentence imposed. The court held that the sentence of three years was appropriate in the circumstances and not manifestly excessive. The applicant's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders