R v Grancourt - [2008] QCA 239

[2008] QCA 239

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
FRASER JA
DOUGLAS J

THE QUEEN

PATRICK LEONEL GRANCOURT Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 18/08/2008

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Fraser will deliver his reasons first.

FRASER JA: On 25 February 2008 the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of stealing, both committed on 25 June 2005; one count of breaking and entering premises and stealing, on 4 December 2005; one count of doing grievous bodily harm and one count of stealing, both committed on 4 January 2007, and one count of stealing on 7 January 2007. He also pleaded guilty to summary offences: two charges of failing to take reasonable care in relation to a syringe, four charges of breaches of bail and one charge of possessing property suspected of being stolen.

The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm offence. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment for the associated count of stealing (concerning alcohol); 20 months imprisonment for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm and six months imprisonment for the associated offence of stealing (involving a wallet); 12 months imprisonment for the offence of breaking, entering and stealing; and nine months imprisonment for the offence of receiving stolen property. Convictions were recorded on each of the summary offences but no further punishment was imposed.

The sentencing Judge also found proved breaches of a suspended sentence of one month imprisonment that had been imposed on 27 June 2005.

It was declared that 429 days which the applicant had spent in presentence custody in respect of the indictable offences was imprisonment already served under the sentences. All of the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, including the activated suspended sentence of imprisonment of one month. The sentencing judge fixed the date upon which the applicant was eligible for release on parole as 25 August 2008. Having regard to the presentence custody the applicant will be eligible for parole after having served about 20 months in custody.

Circumstances of the offences.
On 25 June 2005 at a hotel the applicant punched the complainant in the face, causing him to fall onto bitumen, and then rubbed the complainant's face into the bitumen. As a consequence of this assault the complainant suffered bruising around his left eye, a cut on his nose and bruises on his back. The applicant then stole the complainant's wallet, which contained some cash and other items including credit cards.

There was a conflict in the evidence, as to the events preceding that offending which the sentencing judge found unnecessary to resolve because it would not affect the sentence he intended to impose. The applicant's version was that the complainant had sold the applicant drugs, the quality of which was not to the applicant's satisfaction. The complainant's version was that the applicant assaulted him merely because the complainant declined the applicant's request to give him money.

Whilst the applicant was on…

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 Grancourt

Details

AGLC: R v Grancourt [2008] QCA 239
Case: [2008] QCA 239
Decision Date: 18 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Queen v Patrick Leonel Grancourt, the applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. Grancourt was convicted of multiple offences including assault occasioning bodily harm, stealing, breaking and entering, and doing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to a total of five years imprisonment for grievous bodily harm and various other terms for the remaining offences, all to be served concurrently. Grancourt argued that the sentence was excessive because the sentencing judge had not accepted his version of events regarding one of the offences and because he had not shown genuine remorse. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given Grancourt's criminal history and the nature of the offences. The appeal was dismissed.

Grancourt's main arguments focused on the sentencing judge's finding that Grancourt threw a ceramic oil burner at the complainant's head during the grievous bodily harm offence. Grancourt denied this, but the court found that Grancourt had not disputed this in the sentencing hearing and had, in fact, agreed to proceed on the Crown's version of events. The court also noted that even without the ceramic oil burner, the assault was still serious and vicious. Further, there was no evidence presented to suggest Grancourt was genuinely remorseful for his conduct. The court held that the sentence was appropriate considering Grancourt's criminal history and the need for general and personal deterrence. The appeal was dismissed and Grancourt was advised to make positive changes upon his release from prison.

Orders