R v Chadwick; Ex Parte - [2001] QCA 94

[2001] QCA 94

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS JA
MOYNIHAN J

CA No 302 of 2000

THE QUEEN

BENJAMIN RICHARD CHADWICK Respondent

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 14/03/2001

JUDGMENT

MOYNIHAN J: This is an Attorney-General's appeal against sentence. The respondent pleaded to counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, inflicting grievous bodily harm and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The circumstances giving rise to the offence are these. The respondent is a young man born on 12 February 1974. On 7 June 1998 he was drinking in a hotel in his home town Kingaroy. There were other people there. He followed one of those people to the hotel toilet shortly after midnight and without any provocation or any other occasion of apparent justification assaulted him, punching him a number of times to the head and face, causing him to suffer pain and a swollen eyeball and black eye.

Other persons at the hotel intervened and put an end to the assault. In the course of that the respondent himself was struck a number of blows and, as might be expected, treated somewhat roughly by the interveners. The people who had intervened and the victim then went back out into the bar. The respondent returned and punched one of them on the jaw fracturing it and making it necessary for surgery to be carried out to repair the fracture and to insert a plate.

As I say, the intervention had been completed and the interveners had returned to the bar when the respondent pursued them, in effect, and inflicted the second assault.

The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice relates to an approach to the man Barton whose jaw was fractured and an offer of $10,000 to drop the charges. Nobody treated that as a serious consideration. Although, of course, the offence itself is serious the sentence sought is not of major concern in this appeal.

One of the consequences of the events that I have just described was to activate a sentence which had been imposed on the respondent on 29 April 1996. That was a sentence of six months imprisonment suspended immediately for a period of two and a half years.

The sentencing Judge imposed a sentence in relation to the assault occasioning bodily harm of six months. In respect of the offence of grievous bodily harm, 18 months with a recommendation of eligibility for consideration for parole after serving six, and as to the attempt to pervert the course of justice three months imprisonment. The suspended sentence of six months was activated. All the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

It will be apparent from what has already been said that the respondent had a criminal history because of the suspended sentence. In fact, he had convictions for of the order of 12 assaults; two of them involving the infliction of bodily harm; one with the circumstance of aggravation that he was in company.

In addition to those 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 Chadwick; Ex Parte

Details

AGLC: R v Chadwick; Ex Parte [2001] QCA 94
Case: [2001] QCA 94
Decision Date: 14/03/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chadwick, the Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentence imposed on Benjamin Richard Chadwick, who had pleaded guilty to charges of assault occasioning bodily harm, inflicting grievous bodily harm, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The events leading to the charges occurred on June 7, 1998, when Chadwick, after consuming alcohol at a hotel in Kingaroy, assaulted a man in the hotel's toilet. This was followed by another assault on the same man and an attempt to bribe another individual to drop the charges. Chadwick had a significant criminal history, including multiple assaults and other offenses related to alcohol and public disorder.

The legal issues in this case centred around the appropriate sentencing for the crimes committed by Chadwick, particularly whether the concurrent sentencing of the head sentence and an activated suspended sentence was appropriate. The Court of Appeal had to decide if the sentencing judge exercised sound discretion by imposing the concurrent sentences, and whether the head sentence was within an acceptable range considering the circumstances and the offender's criminal history.

The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, found that while the head sentence of 18 months for the grievous bodily harm was within the acceptable range, the concurrent sentencing of the activated six-month suspended sentence was not appropriate. The suspended sentence should have been cumulative due to its separate and distinct nature from the head sentence. The judges also noted that Chadwick's criminal history, marked by repeated offenses and a pattern of behavior linked to alcohol use, indicated a continued threat to the community. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the order for concurrent sentencing and ordered the six-month suspended sentence to run cumulatively with the head sentence. The judges further decided not to recommend early parole eligibility for Chadwick.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the terms stated by Mr Justice Moynihan, effectively modifying the sentencing order to require the six-month suspended sentence to be served consecutively with the head sentence of 18 months. This decision underscores the importance of considering the distinct nature of offenses and the cumulative impact of an offender's criminal history in sentencing.

Orders