R v GB & LB - [1999] QCA 46

[1999] QCA 46

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J

CA No 443 of 1998 CA No 449 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v.
GB and
LB

Applicants

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/02/99

JUDGMENT

PRESIDENT: The applicants were each found guilty after a trial in the District Court at Longreach on 5 June 1998 of one count of grievous bodily harm. They unsuccessfully appealed against their convictions and were sentenced in the Longreach District Court on 25 November 1998. They now each appeal against their sentence claiming it was manifestly excessive.

The offence occurred on 26 June 1997. The facts are as follows. The incident occurred at the B family home. Present were the applicants' parents, the applicants and the younger brother, S. The complainant was driving a Ford truck and travelling with his wife and 11 year old daughter and another man, RC.

As arranged they stopped at the Bs' house to have a cup of tea and also to discuss a suggestion that LB was owed some money for wages. In the course of the discussion between the Bs and the Fs at the Bs' home an altercation broke out. According to the complainant it started when Mrs F said to LB to tell his parents the truth and then "all hell broke loose".

It seems from the references that have been tendered on behalf of the applicants the B family prides itself on its honesty and finds comments about lack of truthfulness particularly distressing.

The fracas went out into the yard, where the complainant's truck was parked, and the applicants were heavily involved. The fracas was described at one point as "a pretty good full-on fight". The respondent concedes that the applicants feared that the complainant would get a gun which was in his vehicle and that the complainant was known to be a boxing champion.

During the fracas the applicants hit the complainant with pieces of wood. The fracas ended when RC started the truck, the Bs ran or moved away and the Fs drove off.

In the course of the altercation F was injured. His injuries included laceration above the left ear with some active arterial bleeding and active venous bleeding from scalp lacerations. In Dr Manning's opinion this bleeding, if left untreated, would have endangered life from cumulated loss of blood. The complainant received treatment and has recovered fully with no after-effects as a result of the assault.

The applicant, GB, was 19 at the time of the sentence and 18 at the time of the offence. The applicant, LB, was 18 at the time of sentence but 16 at the time of the offence. He therefore, unlike GB, was subject to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

GB was sentenced as an adult to two years imprisonment suspended after four months for two years. LB was sentenced as a juvenile to eight months detention to be released after serving 50 per cent of that sentence and a conviction was recorded. Neither applicant…

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 GB & LB

Details

AGLC: R v GB & LB [1999] QCA 46
Case: [1999] QCA 46
Decision Date: 26 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v GB and LB involves the applicants, GB and LB, who were each found guilty of grievous bodily harm following a trial in the District Court at Longreach. They were subsequently sentenced to custodial terms which they now appeal, arguing that their sentences were manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed by the District Court and determining whether they were appropriate.

The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal had to address were whether the District Court judge erred in concluding that a custodial sentence was inevitable, and whether the judge appropriately considered the sentencing principles outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, particularly in relation to LB who was subject to those provisions. The Court also considered whether the sentences were disproportionate given the circumstances of the offence and the applicants' backgrounds.

In reviewing the case, the Court found that the District Court judge erred in concluding that a custodial sentence was inevitable. The Court noted that the judge was influenced by the Crown Prosecutor's submission but did not adequately consider non-custodial sentencing options. Furthermore, the judge failed to properly apply the sentencing principles for juveniles as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, particularly the principle that detention should be a last resort. The Court found that the judge's approach in sentencing GB first and then sentencing LB to maintain parity was flawed. In light of these errors, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to set aside the sentences and impose new ones.

The Court of Appeal, in light of the exceptional circumstances of the case, decided to impose fully suspended sentences. GB was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended for two years, while LB, who was subject to the Juvenile Justice Act, was ordered to be detained for eight months but released immediately on conditions that he participate in a program for up to three months and abstain from violations of the law. No conviction was recorded for LB.

The Court concluded that the applicants' age, their lack of prior convictions, the mitigating circumstances of the offence, and the absence of lasting harm to the victim justified the imposition of non-custodial sentences. The Court emphasised the importance of avoiding unnecessary exposure to the negative influences of prison for young offenders who commit isolated, out-of-character offences.

Orders