SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Eastwell [2007] QCA 272
PARTIES:
R
v
EASTWELL, Justin Paul
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 131 of 2007
DC No 163 of 2007
DC No 212 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
20 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 August 2007
JUDGES:
Holmes JA, Wilson J and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to offences associated with domestic violence against his wife – where the applicant is a repeat offender – where the applicant sought to rely on post-sentence material on the appeal – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
R v George [2006] QCA 1; CA No 222 of 2005, cited
R v Johnson[2002] QCA 283; CA No 143 of 2002, cited
R v Warwick [2006] QCA 83; CA No 339 of 2005, citedCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Meredith for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of the following offences: assault occasioning bodily harm on a date between 26 and 30 September 2006; wilful damage on 29 September 2006 and breach of a domestic violence order on 29 September 2006.
He was dealt with in the District Court at Ipswich on 17 May 2007. The sentencing Judge imposed a head sentence of
12 months cumulative on 12 months activated suspended sentence. She set the parole release date as 14 May 2008.
The applicant was born on 3 April 1976, so that he was aged 30 at the time of the offences and 31 at sentence.
The offences were committed against his estranged wife. They had been separated for about 15 to 18 months. Both of them had been seeing someone else but they had been trying to reconcile.
He stayed overnight at her house on 28 September and the next morning borrowed her car to go to work. He had work done on the car during the day without her permission. When he returned home there was an argument. On the Crown case, the argument was over the work having been done on the car without her permission. On his case, the argument was over her finding a condom in his wallet.
He went into the bathroom and had a shower. He became angry, grabbed the shower screen and shook it until it fell apart, punching it, causing it to break but not fall out of the…
Continue reading R v. Eastwell
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Eastwell [2007] QCA 272
- Case
- [2007] QCA 272
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal reviewed the facts of the case and the severity of the applicant's previous offences. It also considered the impact of the offences on the victim and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The Court emphasised that the applicant was a repeat offender, which weighed against a reduction in sentence. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and found no grounds for an appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal 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.