SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Dietz [2009] QCA 392
PARTIES:
R
v
DIETZ, Benjamin James
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 234 of 2009
DC No 123 of 2009
DC No 124 of 2009DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Hervey Bay
DELIVERED ON:
18 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2 December 2009
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Muir JA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Muir JA and Daubney J concurring as to the order made, McMurdo P dissentingORDER:
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant was convicted after a trial of one count of doing grievous bodily harm and pleaded guilty to one count of assault and doing bodily harm – the applicant punched the complainant who then hit his head on the bitumen – the complainant suffered dreadful injuries and has ongoing physical and psychological difficulties – the applicant comes from a supportive family, has no prior criminal history and high rehabilitative prospects – the applicant was sentenced for the offence of grievous bodily harm to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving half that period – whether the judge gave insufficient weight to the applicant's age, prior good history and rehabilitative prospects – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995] QCA 80, considered
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Dillon; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 521, cited
R v Fisher (2008) 189 A Crim R 16; [2008] QCA 307, considered
R v Horne [2005] QCA 218, cited
R v Kinersen-Smith & Connor; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2009] QCA 153, cited
R v Madden [2005] QCA 439, considered
R v Mladenovic; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 176, cited
R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 179, consideredCOUNSEL:
M A Green for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Milburn Guttridge Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McMURDO P: The applicant, Benjamin James Dietz, was convicted after a four day trial of doing grievous bodily harm on 1 December 2007 at Hervey Bay. He pleaded guilty to a related offence of assault occasioning bodily harm, committed earlier on the evening of 1 December 2007 at Hervey Bay. Dietz was sentenced for the offence of grievous bodily harm to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility on 2 September 2012, that is, after serving half that period; and for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm to a concurrent 12 month term of imprisonment. He applies for leave to appeal against his sentence only in respect of the grievous bodily harm offence, claiming that it…
Continue reading R v Dietz
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Dietz [2009] QCA 392
- Case
- [2009] QCA 392
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the principles of proportionality and individual circumstances. The applicant contended that the judge did not adequately consider his age, prior good history, and rehabilitative prospects, which warranted a lesser sentence. The court considered the severity of the injuries inflicted on the complainant, the circumstances of the offence, and the applicant's background. The court found that the judge had appropriately considered the applicant's circumstances and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The sentencing judge had appropriately weighed the relevant factors and imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the offence. The court was satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal. This decision underscores the importance of considering both the severity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed
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.