R v Darke - [1996] QCA 303

[1996] QCA 303

COURT OF APPEAL
THOMAS J
de JERSEY J

DOWSETT J

CA No 214 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

ROBERT JAMES DARKE

BRISBANE
..DATE 20/08/96
200896 D.1 T12/JJD1 M/T COA194/96
de JERSEY J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court
to two offences, unlawful wounding and assault occasioning
bodily harm arising out of the same incident and was sentenced
to three years imprisonment and two years imprisonment
respectively to be served concurrently with a recommendation for
eligibility for parole after 15 months, reflecting the pleas of
guilty and some indication of remorse.
He applies for leave to appeal against those sentences. When he
committed the offences the applicant was 21 years old. He and
the complainant, one Keller, had known each other for some time.

They purchased a carton of beer and then, with others, went to drink the beer at a house at Southport. It was some time later that the applicant stabbed the complainant.

A few weeks later the police located the applicant at Nanango. He initially denied involvement with the stabbing but the police found a knife under a mattress at the house where he was staying, which led to his admitting that he had stabbed the complainant. The applicant told the police that after he had consumed about 12 stubbies of beer, he and Keller began to argue about money with Keller saying that the applicant owed him some $100 from some earlier time.

The complainant Keller, ran at the applicant with his head down, so that Keller's head struck the applicant in the stomach. The two began to fight and wrestle. The applicant was carrying the knife in its sheaf down the back of his trousers. He said that he felt the knife and the sheaf moving and thought that Keller was going for it, so he the applicant, drew the knife and stabbed Keller in the leg. That was the offence of unlawful 200896 D.1 T12/JJD1 M/T COA194/96

wounding which involved the applicant's inflicting a three centimetre laceration to the rear of the complainant's left thigh.

The applicant then with the knife still in his hand, punched Keller four or five times in the face and head. That was the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The applicant said that he saw a puddle of blood developing underneath Keller and after yelling to someone else at the party to attend to Keller, he the applicant, ran off. The learned sentencing Judge pointed out that the Courts must take a very serious attitude towards offences such as this wounding involving the use of a knife and additionally and importantly, referred to the applicant's conviction in November 1991 for grievous bodily harm.

These offences occurred in February 1994. The circumstances of the offence for which he was convicted in November 1991 were these, a fight broke out in the early hours of the morning at an hotel. The applicant punched the victim and while the victim was on the ground, the applicant kicked…

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 Darke

Details

AGLC: R v Darke [1996] QCA 303
Case: [1996] QCA 303
Decision Date: 20/08/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Darke is an appeal against sentence where the applicant, Robert James Darke, pleaded guilty to two offences: unlawful wounding and assault occasioning bodily harm. The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were manifestly excessive. The legal issues centred around the severity of the sentences given the nature of the offences, the applicant's previous criminal history, and the circumstances under which the offences were committed. The Court of Appeal needed to weigh the need for deterrence against the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation and other mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal examined various cases to compare the sentencing approach in similar circumstances. The judges considered the unique aspects of each case and noted that the applicant had a prior conviction for grievous bodily harm, which was not as long ago as the current offences. The Court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, given the need for deterrence due to the use of a knife and the applicant's failure to learn from his previous imprisonment. The judges also highlighted that the applicant had pleaded guilty and shown some remorse, but these factors were balanced against his history of violent behaviour.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentences imposed by the District Court. The judges found that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances and the applicant's criminal history. The recommendation for parole after 15 months was considered sufficient to address the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation. The Court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders