R v Edwards - [2012] QCA 117

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2012] QCA 117

PARTIES:

R
v
EDWARDS, Michael John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 281 of 2011
DC No 1054 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 April 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes JA, Mullins and A Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed.

2.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.   Sentence varied by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed to five and a half years.

4.   Sentence imposed at first instance otherwise confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was 26 at the time of the offence and had no prior convictions for violence – where the applicant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration for the offence of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, cited
R v Holland[2008] QCA 200, cited
R v Lowe[2001] QCA 270, cited
R vMarks; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2002] QCA 34, cited
R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, cited
R v Thomason; ex parte A‑G (Qld)[2011] QCA 9, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley SC for the applicant
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him on his plea of guilty to one count of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a declaration that he was convicted of a serious violent offence, with the result that he is required to serve 80 per cent of that sentence before being eligible for parole. The period of 448 days which the applicant had spent in custody before the sentencing date was declared as imprisonment already served under the sentence pursuant to s 159A(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

The offence

The applicant was 26 years old when he stabbed the 23 year old male complainant. The events which led up to the stabbing took place on 11 July 2010 at a railway station. The applicant, his de facto wife, her brother and a female friend had been on a fishing trip. On their journey home, their unruly behaviour led to their ejection from the train on which they were travelling. The applicant was, the Crown accepted,…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2012] QCA 117
Case: [2012] QCA 117
Decision Date: 4 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Edwards, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. At the time of sentencing, the applicant was 26 years old and had no prior convictions for violence. The trial judge sentenced the applicant to seven years imprisonment, with a declaration that the offence was of a serious violent nature.

The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the offender's age, the absence of prior convictions, and the fact that the applicant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The court considered the principles of sentencing in Australia, which require that a sentence should not be disproportionate to the offence committed. The court also noted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need for sentences to be both punitive and rehabilitative.

The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the mitigating factors presented. The court found that a sentence of seven years imprisonment was disproportionate to the offence and the offender's circumstances. The court varied the sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed to five and a half years, while confirming the serious violent offence declaration. The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal against sentence, and varied the sentence as outlined above.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. Sentence varied by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed to five and a half years.

4. Sentence imposed at first instance otherwise confirmed.

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 Edwards [2012] QCA 117
PARTIES:	R v EDWARDS, Michael John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 281 of 2011 DC No 1054 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 April 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes JA, Mullins and A Lyons JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed. 2. Appeal against sentence allowed. 3. Sentence varied by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed to five and a half years. 4. Sentence imposed at first instance otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was 26 at the time of the offence and had no prior convictions for violence – where the applicant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration for the offence of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, cited R v Holland[2008] QCA 200, cited R v Lowe[2001] QCA 270, cited R vMarks; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2002] QCA 34, cited R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, cited R v Thomason; ex parte A‑G (Qld)[2011] QCA 9, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley SC for the applicant S P Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent