R v Corcoran - [2004] QCA 441

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Corcoran [2004] QCA 441

PARTIES:

R
v
CORCORAN, Anthony Scott
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 313 of 2004
SC No 531 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

17 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count of common assault, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of wilful damage – applicant 23 years old at time of offences – involved in course of conduct involving threatening members of his family and his neighbours with two knives and stabbing of his father in law – sentenced to nine years imprisonment and offence of manslaughter declared serious violent offence – whether combination of head sentence and declaration made sentence manifestly excessive

Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 9A

R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, cited
R v De Salvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229, cited
R v MP [2004] QCA 170; CA No 42 of 2004, 20 May 2004, cited
R v Stepto [2002] QCA 10; CA No 220 of 2001, 4 February 2002, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Moynihan for the applicant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant, Mr Corcoran, pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter (count 1), one count of common assault (count 2), one count of assault occasioning bodily harm (count 3) and one count of wilful damage (count 4). He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter and a declaration was made that he was convicted of a serious violent offence under Pt 9A, Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ("the Act"). A further declaration was made under s 161 of the Act that 598 days spent in pre-sentence custody were deemed time already served under the sentence. He was sentenced to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment in respect of the remaining offences. He contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in the light of the declaration under Pt 9A of the Act.

Mr Corcoran was 25 years old at sentence and 23 at the time of the offence. He has a significant criminal history. In 1997, he was placed on three years probation and ordered to perform 240 hours community service for an assortment of property offences, including house breaking, stealing, unlawful use of a motor vehicle for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an indictable offence, unlawful use…

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 Corcoran

Details

AGLC: R v Corcoran [2004] QCA 441
Case: [2004] QCA 441
Decision Date: 17 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Corcoran involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including manslaughter, common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, and wilful damage. The applicant, aged 23 at the time of the offences, had engaged in a series of violent acts against family members and neighbours, including brandishing two knives and stabbing his father-in-law. The court sentenced the applicant to nine years of imprisonment and declared the manslaughter offence a serious violent offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the combination of the head sentence and the declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, taking into account the factors relevant to sentencing. The applicant contended that the head sentence of nine years, coupled with the declaration of the manslaughter offence as a serious violent offence, resulted in a sentence that was disproportionately severe given the applicant's age, the circumstances of the offences, and the lack of any prior convictions. The court had to balance these factors against the gravity of the offences and the need for punishment and deterrence.

The court reviewed the trial judge's reasons and the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant case law. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's age, and the lack of prior convictions. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court also noted that the declaration of the manslaughter offence as a serious violent offence was a necessary measure to ensure the applicant would be subject to appropriate monitoring and rehabilitation programs.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not exceed the bounds of what could be considered a just and proportionate response to the applicant's criminal conduct. The declaration of the manslaughter offence as a serious violent offence was also upheld as a necessary measure to ensure the applicant's continued supervision and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Corcoran [2004] QCA 441
PARTIES:	R v CORCORAN, Anthony Scott (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 313 of 2004 SC No 531 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	17 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count of common assault, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of wilful damage – applicant 23 years old at time of offences – involved in course of conduct involving threatening members of his family and his neighbours with two knives and stabbing of his father in law – sentenced to nine years imprisonment and offence of manslaughter declared serious violent offence – whether combination of head sentence and declaration made sentence manifestly excessive Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 9A R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, cited R v De Salvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229, cited R v MP [2004] QCA 170; CA No 42 of 2004, 20 May 2004, cited R v Stepto [2002] QCA 10; CA No 220 of 2001, 4 February 2002, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Moynihan for the applicant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent