Legal Research
Cases
R v Cuff; ex parte A-G (Qld)

R v Cuff; ex parte A-G (Qld)

Case [2001] QCA 351 22 August 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2001] QCA 351

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
WILLIAMS JA
HOLMES J

CA No 151 of 2001

THE QUEEN

RODNEY BRETT CUFF (Respondent)

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (Appellant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/08/2001

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General from a sentence imposed upon the respondent who pleaded guilty to one count of occasioning grievous bodily harm.

The sentence actually imposed was 12 months' imprisonment to be served as an intensive correction order and, further, an order that the respondent pay compensation to the complainant in the sum of $10,000. The sentence was imposed on 29 May 2001.

The charge arose out of events which occurred at a hotel in Longreach on 9 December 2000. The complainant and the respondent were known to each other and were drinking at the same hotel though apparently not in the same group. They both lived in Longreach.

The complainant saw the respondent wrestling with another man. He also saw some bouncers approaching those two people. He in turn approached the respondent and said something like, "Come on, Cuffie, settle down."

The respondent then punched the complainant in the side of his face with a closed fist causing the complainant to fall to the ground. It appears that the respondent then picked up a chair but was restrained from any further violence. In the circumstances, it must be said that the offence was unprovoked and it was not premeditated.

The complainant was a 22 year old man who suffered a fracture to the left side of his lower jaw. There was associated facial swelling with that and limitation in movement of the jaw. He required surgery to correct the fracture with plates and screws.

He was in hospital for some few days after surgery and in fairly constant pain for three months; during that time, as his victim impact statement evidences, the injuries had considerable effect on his lifestyle.

It was of significance to the learned sentencing Judge that the respondent, a young man aged 27, had two previous convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm.

On 2 February 1995, he was convicted in the Magistrates Court for such an offence, was ordered to pay $500 by way of compensation and ordered to perform 60 hours of community service. No details are available as to the circumstances of that assault but it can be inferred from the details that have just been recited that it was relatively minor.

Then on 14 September 1998, he was convicted in the District Court of assault occasioning bodily harm. On this occasion, he was fined $500. The learned sentencing Judge was informed that that offence involved a punch in a hotel situation.

It would appear from the two previous convictions and the conviction in issue here that the respondent has a problem with anger management, particularly when he has been consuming alcohol.

As a general rule, particularly given the history to which I have referred, one would ordinarily expect the sentence to involve the serving of…

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 Cuff; ex parte A-G (Qld)

Details

AGLC: R v Cuff; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2001] QCA 351
Case: [2001] QCA 351
Decision Date: 22/08/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cuff; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2001] QCA 351 involves an appeal by the Attorney-General against a sentence imposed on Rodney Brett Cuff, who pleaded guilty to a charge of occasioning grievous bodily harm. The sentence was a 12-month imprisonment term to be served as an intensive correction order, along with an order for the respondent to pay compensation of $10,000 to the complainant. The incident that led to the charge occurred on 9 December 2000 at a hotel in Longreach, where the respondent, without provocation, punched the complainant, causing a fracture to the left side of his lower jaw.

The appeal centred on the appropriateness of the sentence, particularly the decision to impose an intensive correction order instead of a custodial sentence. The court had to consider whether the sentence was unduly lenient, especially given the respondent's previous convictions for similar offences and the nature of the current assault. The court also had to weigh the factors that influenced the original sentencing judge, including the offer and payment of compensation by the respondent.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that a custodial sentence would generally be appropriate for such an offence, particularly given the respondent's history of violence. However, the court found the circumstances to be unusual. The respondent had no prior experience with actual custody and had only faced minor supervision previously. The court also noted the significant impact of the compensation payment on the respondent’s ability to support his family. The Court held that the intensive correction order, coupled with the compensation paid, constituted a severe punishment that should not be altered. The court found no basis to set aside the sentence and dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence.

Orders