R v Davy - [2010] QCA 118

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Davy [2010] QCA 118

PARTIES:

R
v
DAVY, Raymond Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 324 of 2009
SC No 779 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and sentenced to 11 years and six months imprisonment – sentence concurrent with five years imprisonment for two counts of fraud and one count of arson – sentence cumulative upon a one year, one month and nine day term of imprisonment – applicant lacked intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm due to intoxication – prosecution unable to establish how the deceased was killed – applicant killed the deceased whilst attempting to obtain the deceased’s PIN number to access the deceased’s money – applicant disposed of the deceased’s body, burnt his car and fraudulently misappropriated his credit cards following the deceased’s death – applicant had a lengthy prior criminal history – applicant submitted a late guilty plea – applicant argued sentence manifestly excessive in the absence of violence and any intention to harm – whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – applicant argued he was erroneously sentenced on the basis that the death occurred due to his criminal negligence – whether applicant was sentenced on the basis of manslaughter by criminal negligence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 285, s 303

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174, considered
R v Bayliss (1987) CCA 27, considered
R v Clark; ex parte A-G[1999] QCA 438, considered
R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, considered
R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited
R v Haack[1999] QCA 76, cited
R v Huebner[2006] QCA 406, considered
R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2009] QCA 274, considered
R v Mooka[2007] QCA 36, cited
R v Sebo; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2007) 179 A Crim R 24; [2007] QCA 426, cited
R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA:I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the order he proposes.

MUIR JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and on 2 December 2009 was sentenced to imprisonment of 11 years and six months. Five years spent in pre-sentence…

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 Davy

Details

AGLC: R v Davy [2010] QCA 118
Case: [2010] QCA 118
Decision Date: 21 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in R v Davy appealed against the sentence imposed following his conviction for manslaughter, two counts of fraud, and one count of arson. The appellant, who had a lengthy criminal history, killed the deceased while attempting to obtain the deceased's PIN number to access his funds. The appellant subsequently disposed of the body, burnt the deceased's car, and fraudulently used the deceased's credit cards. The court sentenced the appellant to 11 years and six months imprisonment for the manslaughter, concurrent with five years imprisonment for the fraud and arson, and cumulative to a prior term of imprisonment. The appellant submitted a late guilty plea and argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the absence of violence and any intention to cause harm.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appellant contended that the sentence was excessive as the prosecution could not establish the exact cause of the deceased's death and the appellant did not have the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm due to intoxication. The appellant further argued that the sentence was based on manslaughter by criminal negligence, rather than intentional manslaughter. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the appellant's criminal history.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the appellant's actions, including the intentional killing of the deceased to obtain access to his funds, the disposal of the body, the burning of the deceased's car, and the fraudulent use of the deceased's credit cards, warranted a severe sentence. The court noted the appellant's lengthy criminal history and the severity of the crimes committed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Davy [2010] QCA 118
PARTIES:	R v DAVY, Raymond Paul (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 324 of 2009 SC No 779 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 May 2010
JUDGES:	Holmes, Muir and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and sentenced to 11 years and six months imprisonment – sentence concurrent with five years imprisonment for two counts of fraud and one count of arson – sentence cumulative upon a one year, one month and nine day term of imprisonment – applicant lacked intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm due to intoxication – prosecution unable to establish how the deceased was killed – applicant killed the deceased whilst attempting to obtain the deceased’s PIN number to access the deceased’s money – applicant disposed of the deceased’s body, burnt his car and fraudulently misappropriated his credit cards following the deceased’s death – applicant had a lengthy prior criminal history – applicant submitted a late guilty plea – applicant argued sentence manifestly excessive in the absence of violence and any intention to harm – whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – applicant argued he was erroneously sentenced on the basis that the death occurred due to his criminal negligence – whether applicant was sentenced on the basis of manslaughter by criminal negligence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 285, s 303 AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174, considered R v Bayliss (1987) CCA 27, considered R v Clark; ex parte A-G[1999] QCA 438, considered R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, considered R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited R v Haack[1999] QCA 76, cited R v Huebner[2006] QCA 406, considered R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2009] QCA 274, considered R v Mooka[2007] QCA 36, cited R v Sebo; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2007) 179 A Crim R 24; [2007] QCA 426, cited R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent