R v Cox

[2011] QCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cox [2011] QCA 277

PARTIES:

R
v
COX, James Malcolm
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 327 of 2010
DC No 85 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

11 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 October 2011

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and McMeekin 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on his pleas of guilty to a head sentence of seven years imprisonment for four counts of rape and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the applicant was formerly in a relationship with the complainant – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v B [1996] QCA 76, cited
R v Faifuaina[2004] QCA 262, cited
R v M[2003] QCA 451, cited
R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440, cited
R v Hutchinson[2010] QCA 22, considered
R v McIlvaney[1997] QCA 16, considered
R v Shaw and Haslett [1995] QCA 294, cited
R v Stirling[1996] QCA 342, considered
R v Taiters[2001] QCA 324, considered
R v West [2007] QCA 347, cited
R v Williams[2002] QCA 211, considered
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith, with K M Hillard, for the applicant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of McMeekin J and the order proposed by his Honour.

1. MARGARET WILSON AJA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

1. I agree with the reasons for judgment of McMeekin J, subject only to this comment.

1. The sentencing judge recognised that the plea of guilty was particularly significant in that it saved the complainant from the trauma of giving evidence, and she made allowance for it both in fixing the head sentence and in fixing the parole eligibility date.  The resulting sentence was accordingly more generous to the applicant than would have been warranted by the objective facts of the offending alone.

1. McMEEKIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on 10 December 2010 on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. 

1. On 15 July 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and four counts of rape, all of which occurred in the course of an attack on the complainant that occurred on 7 May 2009.

1. The learned sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to seven years imprisonment in respect of each count of rape and…