R v. Crompton - [2009] QCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crompton [2009] QCA 19

PARTIES:

R
v
CROMPTON, Damien Anthony
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 259 of 2008
SC No 924 of 2008
SC No 925 of 2008
SC No 929 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Holmes and Fraser JJA

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 applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted on four counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of wounding and two counts of supplying a dangerous drug to a prisoner – where applicant sentenced to nine months imprisonment for each assault count, to be served concurrently; three years imprisonment for the wounding count; and twelve months imprisonment for each supply count, to be served concurrently – where sentences cumulative so that overall sentence equals four years and nine months – where applicant has a criminal history involving violent offending and offending whilst on bail – whether sentence is manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge should have structured the sentence to conform with an offer made by the prosecution to defence counsel – whether the sentencing judge should have set a parole release date or, alternatively, an earlier parole eligibility date

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 155, s 156, 159A, s 160A, s 160C(5)

R v AAF[2008] QCA 235, cited
R v Carter[2008] QCA 226, cited
R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167, cited
R v Cole [1998] QCA 205, cited
R v Devon[2004] QCA 216, cited
R v Friday[2005] QCA 440, cited
R v McDonald[2003] QCA 439, cited
R v Reardon[2006] QCA 225, cited
R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA:I agree with the reasons for judgment prepared by Fraser JA and with the order proposed by his Honour.

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and with the order proposed.

FRASER JA: On 15 September 2008 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the District Court to four counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of wounding. On 16 September 2008 the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty in the trial division of this Court to two counts in an ex-officio indictment of supplying a dangerous drug to a prisoner in a correctional facility. The judge in the trial division sentenced the applicant on those…

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. Crompton

Details

AGLC: R v Crompton [2009] QCA 19
Case: [2009] QCA 19
Decision Date: 17 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Crompton involved an appellant who had pleaded guilty to and was convicted on multiple criminal charges, including four counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of wounding, and two counts of supplying a dangerous drug to a prisoner. The appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for each assault count, to be served concurrently; three years imprisonment for the wounding count; and twelve months imprisonment for each supply count, also to be served concurrently. The cumulative effect of these sentences resulted in an overall sentence of four years and nine months imprisonment. The appellant, who had a criminal history involving both violent offending and offending while on bail, sought to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge should have structured the sentence differently in light of an offer made by the prosecution.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the sentencing judge should have structured the sentence in accordance with the prosecution's offer or set a parole release date or an earlier parole eligibility date. The court needed to determine if the overall sentence was disproportionate to the offences committed, considering the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences. Additionally, the court had to assess the relevance of the prosecution's offer and the appropriateness of the sentencing judge's decision regarding parole eligibility.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. It held that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences, and had exercised their discretion appropriately in determining the sentence. The court also found that the sentencing judge was not bound to structure the sentence in accordance with the prosecution's offer and that there was no basis to set a parole release date or an earlier parole eligibility date. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

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 Crompton [2009] QCA 19
PARTIES:	R v CROMPTON, Damien Anthony (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 259 of 2008 SC No 924 of 2008 SC No 925 of 2008 SC No 929 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2009
JUDGES:	Keane, Holmes and Fraser JJA 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 applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted on four counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of wounding and two counts of supplying a dangerous drug to a prisoner – where applicant sentenced to nine months imprisonment for each assault count, to be served concurrently; three years imprisonment for the wounding count; and twelve months imprisonment for each supply count, to be served concurrently – where sentences cumulative so that overall sentence equals four years and nine months – where applicant has a criminal history involving violent offending and offending whilst on bail – whether sentence is manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge should have structured the sentence to conform with an offer made by the prosecution to defence counsel – whether the sentencing judge should have set a parole release date or, alternatively, an earlier parole eligibility date Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 155, s 156, 159A, s 160A, s 160C(5) R v AAF[2008] QCA 235, cited R v Carter[2008] QCA 226, cited R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167, cited R v Cole [1998] QCA 205, cited R v Devon[2004] QCA 216, cited R v Friday[2005] QCA 440, cited R v McDonald[2003] QCA 439, cited R v Reardon[2006] QCA 225, cited R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent