R v Gompelman - [2002] QCA 191

[2002] QCA 191

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
CULLINANE J
JONES J

CA No 72 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ROBERT WILLIAM GOMPELMAN Applicant

CA No 73 of 2002

THE QUEEN

BROOKE GRACE GOMPELMAN Applicant

TOWNSVILLE

..DATE 28/05/2002

JUDGMENT

1

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant, Robert Gompelman, pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, one count of perpetrating a bomb hoax and one count of unlawful entry of a motor vehicle with intent.

The applicant, Brooke Gompelman, pleaded guilty to the offences of burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed in company.

Robert was sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of two and a half years, suspended after 12 months for three and a half years, and, Brooke, to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended after two months for 18 months. They each contend that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The facts of the offences according to the submissions at sentence were as follows. Slightly different versions were given by the protagonists and by a neighbour of the complainant who became involved.

The complainant was the stepfather of the applicants. On the 23rd of February 2001, the complainant said he was alone in his caravan. He went to bed at about 10.30 p.m. and some time later fell asleep. He was awoken by noises outside. He went back to sleep but was again awoken by a sudden pain in his forehead. He tried to get up out of bed and felt a pair of hands around his throat. He turned on a light and kicked off his attacker whom he recognised as the applicant Robert Gompelman. Robert said he was going to kill him. The complainant also noticed that the applicant Brook Gompelman was in his van. She was holding a steel pipe about 60 centimetres long. The complainant turned to face Robert when he was struck on the back of the neck. He fell to his knees and was struck in the head, neck and leg area about 10 to 15 times by what he later concluded was a part of his sound system. He felt Brooke hitting him around the legs with the pipe.

A neighbour, Mr Howe, came into the van and pulled Robert outside. Brooke followed. Mr Howe stood in the doorway and prevented the applicants from entering the van.

Mr Howe's account was that he saw Brooke holding what he thought was an aluminium tent pole and noticed she had blood on her shirt. He grabbed Brooke around the waist and carried her out of the caravan. He dragged Robert out of the caravan by placing him in a headlock. Robert re-entered the van and pushed Howe aside. Robert punched the complainant in the head and hit him in the head with a car radio. Howe again managed to pull Robert out of the van and prevented him from
re-entering the van. Mrs Howe called police and ambulance.

The complainant was taken to the Townsville…

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 Gompelman

Details

AGLC: R v Gompelman [2002] QCA 191
Case: [2002] QCA 191
Decision Date: 28/05/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gompelman, Robert and Brooke Gompelman were convicted of various offences including burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm, perpetrating a bomb hoax, and unlawful entry of a motor vehicle with intent. They appealed against the sentences imposed by the lower court, arguing that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The appellants contended that the sentences did not sufficiently account for their early guilty pleas, their young age, and the fact that they committed the crimes out of a misguided sense of loyalty to their mother and half-sisters who were victims of the complainant's alleged unlawful behaviour. The Court of Appeal reviewed the arguments and the evidence presented at the original sentencing hearing, including the history of conflict between the parties and the circumstances of the crimes.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Robert Gompelman was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the crimes and the need for deterrent penalties. However, the court agreed that the sentence imposed on Brooke Gompelman was manifestly inappropriate, taking into account her young age at the time of the offence, her limited involvement, and the changed circumstances since sentencing, including her pregnancy and the birth of her child. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed Brooke Gompelman's appeal against her sentence to the limited extent of suspending the sentence forthwith, meaning that she would not serve any further term of actual imprisonment.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed Robert Gompelman's appeal against sentence and allowed Brooke Gompelman's appeal to the extent of suspending her sentence, thus ensuring that she would not serve any further term of imprisonment.

Orders