R v Deans

[2000] QCA 516

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Deans  [2000] QCA 516

PARTIES:

R
v

DEANS, Joshua Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 257 of 2000
DC No 2181 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2000

JUDGES:

Pincus JA, Williams and Cullinane JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; Pincus JA and Williams J concurring as to the order made, Cullinane J dissenting.

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICITON – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 12 months – where applicant sentenced on basis of negligent discharge of firearm – where applicant aged 19 at time of offence and had a minor criminal history – where background of feuding between complainant and applicant – sentence imposed at top of range, but not manifestly excessive.

Per Cullinane J (dissenting) – sentence imposed did not make sufficient allowance for applicant’s age, minor criminal history and threatening conduct of complainant prior to offence.

R v Ryan CA No 241 of 1984, 26 November 1981, considered
R v Blackett CA No 227 of 1990, 12 October 1990, considered
R v Suliman [1999] QCA 228; CA No 65 of 1999, 17 June 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

C Reid for the applicant
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Patrick Murphy for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. PINCUS JA:  The circumstances giving rise to this application for leave to appeal against sentence are set out in the reasons of Williams J and those of Cullinane J.

1. Before the sentencing judge, it was said on the applicant's behalf that he was concerned about his own safety because the complainant had threatened him on a number of occasions.  The judge inferred, correctly as it appears to me, that the applicant bought the shotgun, use of which constituted the offence in question, because of “some concerns you had”, by which his Honour meant concern about the possibility of an attack on him by the complainant.  The criminal history of the complainant was tendered and it can be seen to include three offences involving violence in 1993, two in 1996 and two in 1998.  The complainant had been on three occasions sentenced to imprisonment for such offences. 

1. On the face of it, then, there is nothing improbable about the applicant's case, argued below, that the complainant made threats against him and that the applicant took them seriously.  But a difficulty which the applicant faces is that there was nothing to suggest that, on the occasion in question, the complainant made any threat or acted in a threatening…