R v Dench

[1992] QCA 202

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 202

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA

DEMACK J

CA No 53 of 1992

THE QUEEN
v.

CARL DENCH

BRISBANE
.. DATE 9/6/92

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT THE PRESIDENT: The applicant has applied for leave to appeal

against a sentence imposed on him on 14 February 1992 when he no prior convictions, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

was convicted on his own plea of unlawful wounding on 16

The applicant did not know the complainant who was a mildly retarded man who resided alone in a hostel. The applicant entered the hostel in the early hours of the morning and stabbed the complainant about the upper chest and neck with knives which were about four to 5 cm in length which he had obtained from the kitchen in the hostel. The wounds were not life-threatening, but further injury may have been prevented by the bed clothes.

Psychological evidence indicated that the applicant, who was a could not be justified, but that any treatment beneficial to the applicant should be continued and his condition should be closely monitored when the time came for him to be released. The respondent says that a custodial sentence was called for and contends that the sentence imposed was appropriate having regard to the safety of the community, particularly in view of the recommendation for the continuation of the applicant's counselling and treatment.

member of the Navy, had a high predisposition to stress and on
the night in question had consumed alcohol to excess. In
consequence he had reached a breaking point and acted
impulsively and irrationally. At the time he was sentenced
the applicant's service with the Navy had not been terminated
and he had sought and was receiving ongoing counselling and
other help and was progressing satisfactorily.

It was pointed out that the attack was serious notwithstanding, but did not produce life-threatening injuries and that the maximum period of imprisonment allowed for the offence was seven years. For the applicant it was submitted that if there had to be some custodial element to the sentence, no more than six months’ imprisonment should have been imposed followed by a period of probation.

It was pointed out that the term served would vary little in that event from that which will be served under the sentence imposed, but that the period of monitoring and counselling could be much longer. The fundamental point of departure between the applicant and the respondent was whether or not deterrence was an important part of the sentencing process. The applicant said deterrence was not of particular importance because the circumstances were so unusual, whereas the respondent contended that the applicant's condition, as evidenced by the reports, indicated that community safety and deterrence were important and necessary factors to be taken into account and given weight.

In my opinion the deterrent aspect is of considerable significance and I have no doubt that the sentence was appropriate. Certainly it could not be said to be manifestly excessive or such that this Court could find justification to interfere. I refuse the application.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The application is refused.

_____