R v Coghlan - [1997] QCA 270

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 270
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 139 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Coghlan]

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOHN COGHLAN

Applicant

Demack J.
Mackenzie J.
Helman J.

Judgment delivered 5 September 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the orders made.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCES REFUSED

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - whether sentencing judge failed to give adequate consideration to applicant’s youth, deprived upbringing and its consequences, absence of serious prior criminal convictions, effects of alcohol and marijuana, remorse and early plea of guilty - effect of Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences) Amendment Act 1997 on parole recommendations made before 1 July 1997.

R v. Sayers and Frost (unrep., C.A. nos. 104 and 137 of 1997, 5.9.97)
R v. Kwan (unrep., C.A. no. 65 of 1988, 23.5.88)
R v. Griinke (unrep., C.A. no. 278 of 1990, 7.12.90)
R v. Gerrits (unrep., C.A. nos. 158 and 192 of 1991, 4.10.91)
R v. Penniment (unrep., C.A. no. 38 of 1992, 29.4.92)
R v. Williams (unrep., C.A. no. 136 of 1996, 6.6.96)
R v. Schwartz (unrep., C.A. no. 311 of 1996, 19.9.96)
R v. Currie (unrep., C.A. no. 320 of 1996, 2.10.96)
R v. Soper (unrep., C.A. no. 119 of 1994, 15.6.94)
R v. Riley (unrep., C.A. no. 155 of 1992, 7.9.92)
R v. Rosenburger ex parte Attorney-General [1995] 1 Qd.R. 677
R v. Hammond (unrep., C.A. no. 445 of 1996, 10.12.96)

Counsel:	Mr A. Glynn S.C. for the applicant Mr J. Hunter for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland for the respondent
Hearing Date:	20 June 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DEMACK J.

Judgment delivered 5 September 1997

I have read the reasons for judgment of Helman J. and agree with the orders he proposes. I agree that the sentence imposed was a proper one and that the observations in R v. Hammond C.A. No. 445 of 1996 do not assist the applicant. In respect of the application of Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act I agree with His Honour’s conclusions for the reason I have given in The Queen v. Donald Jeffery Sayers (C.A. No. 104 of 1997) and The Queen v. Anthony John Frost (C.A. No. 137 of 1997).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MACKENZIE J.

Judgment Delivered 5 September 1997

I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by Helman J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - HELMAN J.

Judgment delivered 5 September 1997

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences pronounced upon the applicant in the Brisbane District Court on 13 March this year. On 10 March 1997 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count which was treated as an allegation of assault with intent to steal although the allegation on the indictment was of attempted robbery, one count of deprivation…

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 Coghlan

Details

AGLC: R v Coghlan [1997] QCA 270
Case: [1997] QCA 270
Decision Date: 5/09/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v. Coghlan involved the applicant, Christopher John Coghlan, appealing against the sentences pronounced upon him in the Brisbane District Court for various offences including burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm, rape, and deprivation of liberty. The applicant's legal representative argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the applicant's youth, deprived upbringing, absence of serious prior criminal convictions, effects of alcohol and marijuana, remorse, and his early plea of guilty. The court was also asked to consider the possible application of recent amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the applicant's submissions on the evidence of intoxication and concluded that the sentencing judge's discretion was not miscarried. The court examined the applicant's background, which included a difficult upbringing and substance abuse issues, but found that the applicant's intoxication did not constitute a mitigating circumstance. The court also concluded that the amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act did not affect the recommendation concerning parole made by the sentencing judge.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant's brutality called for severe punishment, and the effect on the woman was devastating. Despite giving full weight to the matters relied upon by the applicant's legal representative, the court was not persuaded that the sentencing judge's discretion miscarried. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders