R v Eade - [2005] QCA 148

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Eade [2005] QCA 148

PARTIES:

R
v
EADE, Mark Vivian
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 50 of 2005
DC No 105 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

10 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 May 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – convictions for grievous bodily harm with intent, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and drink driving – effect of serious violent offence declaration - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – consideration of youth and lack of prior convictions

R v Bird and Schipper [2000] QCA 94, CA No 318 of 1999, CA No 325 of 1999, 24 March 2000, considered
R v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206, CA No 4 of 1999, 8 June 1999, considered
R v Bryan; ex-parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 18, CA No 410 of 2002, 5 January 2003, considered
R v Chambers (2002) 136 A Crim R 89, considered

R v Fahey and Solomon and AD [2001] QCA 82, CA No 295 of 2000, CA No 305 of 2000, CA No 345 of 2000, 9 March 2000

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Price and Roobottom for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Wilson will deliver her reasons first.

WILSON J: The applicant pleaded guilty to the following offences committed on 24 April 2004 - grievous bodily harm with intent, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm whilst intoxicated, and a drink driving offence.

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm with intent: a declaration that he had committed a serious violent offence automatically followed.

For the other offences, he was sentenced to three years for the assault occasioning bodily harm and three years for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The terms of imprisonment were to be served concurrently. No further penalty was imposed with respect to the drink driving offence. He had served 292 days of presentence custody, which was declared time already served under the sentence.

The offences occurred in Bundaberg. The two complainants, Brodie and Eccles, were visitors to Bundaberg. They were walking back to their motel at about midnight. As they walked along Bourbong Street two vehicles, one driven by the applicant, drove past. Some of the occupants of both vehicles yelled abuse at Eccles who yelled abuse back…

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.

Continue reading R v Eade

Details

AGLC: R v Eade [2005] QCA 148
Case: [2005] QCA 148
Decision Date: 10 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eade involved the appellant, who was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and drink driving. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive given his youth and lack of prior convictions. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the appellant's youth and the absence of prior convictions. Additionally, the court needed to assess the effect of the serious violent offence declaration on the overall sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the severity of the crimes committed, the appellant's youth, and the lack of prior convictions. However, the court held that these factors did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the offences. Consequently, the High Court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Eade [2005] QCA 148
PARTIES:	R v EADE, Mark Vivian (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 50 of 2005 DC No 105 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	10 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 May 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir and Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – convictions for grievous bodily harm with intent, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and drink driving – effect of serious violent offence declaration - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – consideration of youth and lack of prior convictions R v Bird and Schipper [2000] QCA 94, CA No 318 of 1999, CA No 325 of 1999, 24 March 2000, considered R v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206, CA No 4 of 1999, 8 June 1999, considered R v Bryan; ex-parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 18, CA No 410 of 2002, 5 January 2003, considered R v Chambers (2002) 136 A Crim R 89, considered R v Fahey and Solomon and AD [2001] QCA 82, CA No 295 of 2000, CA No 305 of 2000, CA No 345 of 2000, 9 March 2000
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Price and Roobottom for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent