R v George; ex parte

Case [2004] QCA 450

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v George; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 450

PARTIES:

R
v
GEORGE, Lee Daniel
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 316 of 2004
SC No 40 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 November 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Allow the appeal

2.    Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof order that the respondent be imprisoned for nine years to date from 18 August 2004

3.    Declare that the respondent has spent four days in pre-sentence custody which is time served pursuant to the sentence imposed by this court

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondent convicted of manslaughter – where sentenced to eight years imprisonment with recommendation that he be eligible for post-prison community based release after three years and three months – where respondent was involved in fight with deceased and others – where lethal punch was delivered when deceased was not posing a threat to respondent and after arrival of police – whether sentence imposed manifestly inadequate

R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, cited
R v Schubring; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 418; CA No 217 of 2004, CA No 228 of 2004, 5 November 2004, cited
R v Simeon [2000] QCA 470; CA No 167 of 2000, 21 November 2000, cited
R v Summers [1990] 1 Qd R 92, cited
R v Tientjes; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 480; CA No 229 of 1999, 16 November 1999, cited
R v Whiting; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1995] 2 Qd R 199, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter SC for the appellant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. McPHERSON JA:  I agree with the reasons of Williams JA, which I have had the opportunity of reading.  I agree with the orders proposed in his Honour’s reasons.

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  The respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court at Mt Isa on 18 August 2004 to a charge of manslaughter.  He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for post-prison community based release after serving three years and three months.  Four days pre-sentence custody was declared to be time already served.  From that sentence the Attorney-General has appealed.

  1. The events giving rise to the charge occurred on 29 September 2002 at Normanton.  The deceased and a number of his friends were drinking at the…

Continue reading R v George; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v George; ex parte [2004] QCA 450
Case
[2004] QCA 450
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal against the sentence of George, who had been convicted of manslaughter. The appeal was brought by the Attorney-General, seeking to increase the sentence imposed by the trial court. George had been involved in a fight with the deceased and others, during which a lethal punch was delivered when the deceased was not posing a threat and after the arrival of police. The trial court had sentenced George to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for post-prison community-based release after three years and three months. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly inadequate. The court had to consider the severity of the crime, the nature of George's involvement, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The appeal court examined whether the original sentence failed to appropriately reflect the seriousness of the manslaughter and the circumstances surrounding it. The Attorney-General argued that the original sentence did not adequately address the culpability of George and the impact of his actions on the deceased and his family.

The appeal court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed at first instance. The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, as it did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for punishment. The court ordered that George be imprisoned for nine years, to date from 18 August 2004. Additionally, the court declared that George had already spent four days in pre-sentence custody, which was considered time served pursuant to the sentence imposed by the appeal court. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that sentences appropriately reflect the nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal

2. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof order that the respondent be imprisoned for nine years to date from 18 August 2004

3. Declare that the respondent has spent four days in pre-sentence custody which is time served pursuant to the sentence imposed by this court

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.