R v Geissler - [2019] QCA 63

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Geissler [2019] QCA 63

PARTIES:

R
v
GEISSLER, Mala Owen
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 84 of 2018
SC No 29 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 28 March 2018 (Henry J)

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for manslaughter, a serious violent offence declaration was made and a concurrent term of 12 months imprisonment for an unrelated summary offence was imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Black[2009] QCA 198, considered
R v Civic[2014] QCA 322, cited
R v De Salvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, cited
R v Griffin & Dunkerton [1999] QCA 71, considered
R v Hicks & Taylor [2011] QCA 207, cited
R v Lacey; Ex parte Attorney General (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, considered
R v Mooka[2007] QCA 36, cited

COUNSEL:

J McInnes for the applicant
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: After a six day trial, the applicant was found not guilty of murder and guilty of manslaughter. On the following day the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years, in consequence of which it was declared that the conviction was of a serious violent offence (so that the applicant would not be eligible for parole until he has served 80 per cent of the term of imprisonment). The applicant was sentenced to a concurrent term of 12 months imprisonment for an unrelated summary offence to which he pleaded guilty. The applicant appeals against the sentence for the manslaughter offence upon the ground that it is manifestly excessive.
The sentencing judge summarised the factual basis of the sentence. The applicant met his two co-offenders, Wales and Abell, at Abell’s home. They drank alcohol and smoked marijuana and methamphetamine. One of the co-offenders led a conversation about going to the home of one Mr Baynton, who was believed by the applicant and his co-offenders to be a drug dealer who would have money. The applicant armed himself with a samurai sword and Wales took a shortened pool cue. By the time they set off in Wales’ car all three were significantly drug affected. Each of them wrapped a shirt around his head as a disguise before approaching the deceased’s unit, but in their drug-addled state no attempt was made to conceal the number plate of the car they drove in and they chose to commit the offence in broad daylight.
Upon arrival…

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 Geissler

Details

AGLC: R v Geissler [2019] QCA 63
Case: [2019] QCA 63
Decision Date: 16 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, along with a declaration that a serious violent offence had been committed. A concurrent sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed for an unrelated summary offence. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court considered the circumstances of the manslaughter, the impact of the serious violent offence declaration, and the imposition of the concurrent sentence for the unrelated offence. The court examined the principles governing sentencing for manslaughter and the role of the serious violent offence declaration in the sentencing process.

The central issue for the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. This required a detailed analysis of the circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing in similar cases. The court noted that the sentence was within the maximum penalty for manslaughter and that the serious violent offence declaration and the concurrent sentence for the unrelated offence were properly considered. The appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive was rejected. The court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, given the seriousness of the manslaughter and the totality of the circumstances.

The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and the relevant circumstances. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court confirmed that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant an appeal. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific facts of the case.

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 Geissler [2019] QCA 63
PARTIES:	R v GEISSLER, Mala Owen (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 84 of 2018 SC No 29 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 28 March 2018 (Henry J)
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2018
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for manslaughter, a serious violent offence declaration was made and a concurrent term of 12 months imprisonment for an unrelated summary offence was imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Black[2009] QCA 198, considered R v Civic[2014] QCA 322, cited R v De Salvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, cited R v Griffin & Dunkerton [1999] QCA 71, considered R v Hicks & Taylor [2011] QCA 207, cited R v Lacey; Ex parte Attorney General (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, considered R v Mooka[2007] QCA 36, cited
COUNSEL:	J McInnes for the applicant D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent