R v Dobinson

Case [2006] QCA 357


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dobinson [2006] QCA 357

PARTIES:

R
v
DOBINSON, Justin John
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 178 of 2006
DC No 55 of 2006
DC No 221 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 August 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Atkinson and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm, two counts of negligent acts causing harm, and one count of drink driving – where co-accused in respect of grievous bodily harm count received a different sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(c), s 9(2), s 9(3)
Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences) Amendment Act 1997 (Qld)

R v Price [2006] QCA 180; CA No 38 of 2006, 26 May 2006 applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. :JERRARD JA I have read the reasons for judgment of Justice Douglas and respectfully agree with those reasons and the order proposed by His Honour.

  1. ATKINSON J:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Douglas J and the orders proposed.

  1. DOUGLAS J:  The applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and to two offences of performing negligent acts causing harm, as well as to a summary offence of drink driving.  The offences occurred on two separate occasions, 9 April 2005 and on 4 June 2005.  He was convicted on 1 June 2006 and sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months on the count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, to 21 months suspended after 12 months on each count of performing negligent acts causing harm and to three years probation in respect of a dangerous driving charge.  The sentences were to be served concurrently.  He had previously been convicted for two assaults occasioning bodily harm in 2003 and, after the present offences and while on bail for them, was convicted for a common assault in December 2005. 

  1. His submission is that the period of imprisonment for his offences should have been six months.

  1. In summary the circumstances of the offences were that on 9 April 2005 a man named Mr Toombs was initially assaulted by the applicant’s co-offender, named Tyson Foord. Mr Toombs had a congenital medical condition, so a soldier called Joel Juratowitch who knew of Mr Toombs’ condition intervened, trying to separate Mr Foord and…

Continue reading R v Dobinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dobinson [2006] QCA 357
Case
[2006] QCA 357
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Dobinson, appealed against his sentence after being found guilty of grievous bodily harm, two counts of negligent acts causing harm, and one count of drink driving. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court. The central issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed on Dobinson was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case and in comparison to the sentence received by a co-accused who was involved in the grievous bodily harm count.

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case. It noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account various factors, including the nature of the offences, Dobinson's plea of guilty, and the impact of his actions. The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range and did not reach the threshold of being manifestly excessive. The comparison with the co-accused's sentence was also considered, and it was determined that differences in sentencing could be justified by varying circumstances and culpability.

As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence as appropriate. The application to reduce the sentence was therefore unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.