R v Dillon; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2006] QCA 521

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dillon; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 521

PARTIES:

R
v
DILLON, Blake Joseph
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 217 of 2006
DC No 3579 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 October 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Fryberg JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
McMurdo P and Mackenzie J concurring as to the orders made, Fryberg J dissenting in part

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed

2. Sentence imposed at first instance is varied by deleting that part of the sentence suspending the term of imprisonment and instead recommending the respondent be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 15 months of that sentence, on 6 October 2007

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where respondent pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm - where respondent hit and kicked complainant causing facial fractures and other significant injuries necessitating hospitalisation - where respondent has a criminal history for previous drug and street offences, assault and breaching probation orders - where respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for three years suspended after 10 months with an operational period of three years - where respondent appears to be making genuine attempts at rehabilitation - where Attorney-General appeals against sentence claiming that it is manifestly inadequate - whether sentence is manifestly inadequate - whether this Court should impose a sentence with a parole recommendation rather than a suspended sentence so that respondent can benefit from support and supervision

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 669A(1)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 154, s 157, s 160B, s 213, s 214

Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213, applied

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, applied

Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295, applied

R v Dobinson[2006] QCA 357; CA No 178 of 2006, 15 September 2006, distinguished

R v Johnston[2004] QCA 12; CA No 263 of 2003, 6 February 2004, distinguished

R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 179; CA No 88 of 2005, 31 May 2005, applied

R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42, applied

COUNSEL:

S G Bain for appellant
M O Anderson for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant

Adams Luca & Smith Lawyers for respondent

McMURDO P: The respondent Blake Joseph Dillon pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane on 7 July 2006 to one count of doing grievous bodily harm to Christopher Gregory Wilkins on 1 May 2004. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years suspended after 10 months with an operational period…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dillon; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QCA 521
Decision Date: 8 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Dillon, was convicted of grievous bodily harm after attacking the complainant, causing significant facial fractures and other injuries that necessitated hospitalisation. The respondent had a criminal history involving drug and street offences, assault, and probation breaches. The trial court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for three years, suspended after 10 months, with an operational period of three years. The Attorney-General, representing the Crown, appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal centred on whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the Court should impose a different sentence to ensure the respondent could benefit from support and supervision.

The central legal issue was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court examined the nature of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the circumstances of the incident. It also considered the respondent's efforts towards rehabilitation and the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant statutes and case law. The Court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the respondent's potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. It considered the severity of the offence and the respondent's history of similar criminal behaviour. The Court noted that the suspended sentence did not provide sufficient supervision or support, which were essential for the respondent's rehabilitation. Drawing on precedents such as Bond v The Queen and Dinsdale v The Queen, the Court held that the sentence should be varied to ensure the respondent could receive necessary support and supervision. Consequently, the Court varied the sentence by deleting the part that suspended the imprisonment term and recommending the respondent be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 15 months.

The final orders of the Court were to allow the appeal and vary the sentence by recommending the respondent be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 15 months of the sentence. This decision aimed to provide the respondent with the necessary support and supervision to aid in their rehabilitation and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Sentence imposed at first instance is varied by deleting that part of the sentence suspending the term of imprisonment and instead recommending the respondent be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 15 months of that sentence, on 6 October 2007

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 Dillon; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 521
PARTIES:	R v DILLON, Blake Joseph (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 217 of 2006 DC No 3579 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 October 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Fryberg JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Mackenzie J concurring as to the orders made, Fryberg J dissenting in part
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Sentence imposed at first instance is varied by deleting that part of the sentence suspending the term of imprisonment and instead recommending the respondent be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 15 months of that sentence, on 6 October 2007
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where respondent pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm - where respondent hit and kicked complainant causing facial fractures and other significant injuries necessitating hospitalisation - where respondent has a criminal history for previous drug and street offences, assault and breaching probation orders - where respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for three years suspended after 10 months with an operational period of three years - where respondent appears to be making genuine attempts at rehabilitation - where Attorney-General appeals against sentence claiming that it is manifestly inadequate - whether sentence is manifestly inadequate - whether this Court should impose a sentence with a parole recommendation rather than a suspended sentence so that respondent can benefit from support and supervision Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 669A(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 154, s 157, s 160B, s 213, s 214 Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213, applied Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, applied Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295, applied R v Dobinson[2006] QCA 357; CA No 178 of 2006, 15 September 2006, distinguished R v Johnston[2004] QCA 12; CA No 263 of 2003, 6 February 2004, distinguished R v Tupou; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 179; CA No 88 of 2005, 31 May 2005, applied R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42, applied
COUNSEL:	S G Bain for appellant M O Anderson for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant Adams Luca & Smith Lawyers for respondent