R v Castle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) - [2014] QCA 276

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Castle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 276

PARTIES:

R
v
CASTLE, Dylan Bradley
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 138 of 2014
DC No 1879 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 October 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm and one count of serious assault – where the respondent received a head sentence of four and a half years imprisonment and will be eligible for parole after serving 18 months – where the appellant argued the sentence was manifestly inadequate because the head sentence and the custodial period before parole eligibility were both too short – where the appellant argued the sentencing judge should have made a serious violent offence declaration or otherwise postponed the parole eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160C(5), s 161B

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372; [2014] HCA 2, considered
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Anning[2008] QCA 161, cited
R v Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2014] QCA 128, followed
R v Craigie[2014] QCA 1, considered
R v Cullen & Hutchins; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2012] QCA 222, cited
R v Dillion; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2006] QCA 521, considered
R v Fisher (2008) 189 A Crim R 16; [2008] QCA 307, considered
R v Green[2013] QCA 24, cited
R v Kinersen-Smith & Connor; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 153, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v Tupou; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2005] QCA 179, considered
R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, followed
R v Verheyen[2008] QCA 150, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan QC, with S J Bain, for the appellant
J J Allen with L D Reece for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Fraser JA.

FRASER JA: On 2 May 2014 the respondent was convicted on his pleas 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Castle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCA 276
Decision Date: 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Castle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to charges of causing grievous bodily harm and serious assault. The respondent was sentenced to a head sentence of four and a half years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving 18 months. The appellant, acting on behalf of the Attorney-General, argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate on the grounds that both the head sentence and the custodial period before parole eligibility were too short. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the sentencing judge should have made a serious violent offence declaration or otherwise postponed the parole eligibility date. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, requiring interference by the appellate court.

The court considered the principles governing appeals against sentences, specifically focusing on the concept of manifest inadequacy. The court acknowledged that while it is within the discretion of the sentencing judge to determine the appropriate sentence, this discretion is not unfettered and may be subject to review if the sentence is found to be manifestly inadequate. The court examined the head sentence, the custodial period before parole eligibility, and the overall proportionality of the sentence in light of the severity of the offences committed. The court also assessed whether there were any errors in the sentencing process that warranted interference.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account all relevant factors. The court also determined that there was no error in the sentencing process that would warrant interference. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

ORDERS:
The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of four and a half years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after 18 months, was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Castle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 276
PARTIES:	R v CASTLE, Dylan Bradley (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 138 of 2014 DC No 1879 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 October 2014
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm and one count of serious assault – where the respondent received a head sentence of four and a half years imprisonment and will be eligible for parole after serving 18 months – where the appellant argued the sentence was manifestly inadequate because the head sentence and the custodial period before parole eligibility were both too short – where the appellant argued the sentencing judge should have made a serious violent offence declaration or otherwise postponed the parole eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160C(5), s 161B Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372; [2014] HCA 2, considered House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Anning[2008] QCA 161, cited R v Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2014] QCA 128, followed R v Craigie[2014] QCA 1, considered R v Cullen & Hutchins; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2012] QCA 222, cited R v Dillion; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2006] QCA 521, considered R v Fisher (2008) 189 A Crim R 16; [2008] QCA 307, considered R v Green[2013] QCA 24, cited R v Kinersen-Smith & Connor; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 153, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Tupou; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2005] QCA 179, considered R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, followed R v Verheyen[2008] QCA 150, cited
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan QC, with S J Bain, for the appellant J J Allen with L D Reece for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent