Legal Research
Cases
R v Granz-Glenn

R v Granz-Glenn

Case [2023] QCA 157 4 August 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Granz-Glenn [2023] QCA 157

PARTIES:

R
v
GRANZ-GLENN, Geoffrey Dale
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 205 of 2022
SC No 530 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 August 2022 (Williams J)

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2023

JUDGES:

Bond and Flanagan JJA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where five offenders had been separately sentenced for their part in the unlawful killing of the deceased – where one offender was sentenced after a jury trial in which he was acquitted of felony murder and convicted of manslaughter – where the other four offenders were convicted of manslaughter on their own pleas of guilty – where each offender was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with declarations as to time served but without having parole eligibility dates fixed – where the offender convicted after the jury trial was sentenced on the factual basis of his being criminally negligent – where the other offenders were sentenced on the different factual basis that each of them had been part of a common plan to rob the deceased and her partner and that it had been within their contemplation that violence would be used of such a kind or degree that the commission of an unintentional, unlawful killing was a probable consequence – where the applicant was the last offender to be sentenced – where the sentencing judge considered the operation of the parity principle by references to the sentences imposed on the other offenders and concluded the same sentence was appropriate – whether the differentiation made by the sentencing judge was open to her in the exercise of her discretion – where after the applicant had been sentenced the sentence of one of his co-offenders was varied on appeal by an order that she be eligible for parole after serving one third of her head sentence – where the applicant sought to appeal his sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the disparity between his sentence and the sentence of his co-offender which had been varied on appeal was such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance as would warrant appellate intervention

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, applied
Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376, cited
Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166, cited
R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited
R v Oram; R v Hinds[2022] QCA 244, considered
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Watson[2021] QCA 225, cited
R v WBV[2023] QCA 79, cited

COUNSEL:

C Martinovic for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Cridland &…

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 Granz-Glenn

Details

AGLC: R v Granz-Glenn [2023] QCA 157
Case: [2023] QCA 157
Decision Date: 4 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Granz-Glenn, the applicant sought to appeal his sentence for his involvement in the unlawful killing of a deceased individual. The applicant was one of five offenders who were separately sentenced for their part in the crime. The applicant was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. The other four offenders had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were also sentenced to nine years imprisonment. The applicant's sentence was based on the factual basis that he was criminally negligent, while the other offenders were sentenced on the basis that they had been part of a common plan to rob the deceased and her partner, with violence being a probable consequence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive and whether the disparity between his sentence and the sentence of one of his co-offenders, who had her sentence varied on appeal, was such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. The court found that the applicant's co-operation was less than that of his co-offender, which justified the differentiation in their sentences. The court also found that the applicant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the disparity between his sentence and the varied sentence of his co-offender did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal against the applicant's sentence must be refused. The judges unanimously agreed that the applicant's co-operation was less than that of his co-offender, which justified the differentiation in their sentences. The judges also found that the applicant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the disparity between his sentence and the varied sentence of his co-offender did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal against sentence is 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

In this case, the extent of Hinds’ co-operation as identified by McMurdo JA was much greater than that which the sentencing judge found the applicant to have given. When one appreciates that distinction, one is driven to conclude that, objectively assessed, the applicant can have no justified sense of grievance arising out of the fact that Hinds was given a parole eligibility date and he was not. Ground 3 fails also.Conclusion The application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused. FLANAGAN JA: I agree with Bond JA. BRADLEY J: I agree with the reasons of Bond JA and with the order his Honour proposes.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Granz-Glenn [2023] QCA 157

Most Recent Citation

R v Jones [2023] QCA 212

Cases citing this decision · 5 of 5 shown

R v Bornstein
[2024] QSC 270 Para 41

…ke ,[13] R v Granz-Glenn [14] and more recently R v LZY & Porter .[15] [11][1991] QSCCA; (1993) 1 Qd R 643. [12][2019] QCA 64. [13][2020] QCA 53. [14][2023] QCA 157. [15][2024] QSC 237.…
R v LZY & Porter
[2024] QSC 237 Para 36

…are vulnerable by nature of their work. They are in reality “on-call victims”. [12][1993] 1 Qd R 643. [13][2020] QCA 53. [14][2019] QCA 157. [15][2023] QCA 157.…
Shol v Commissioner of Police
[2024] QDC 133 Para 6

…ole release date to reflect the further matters in mitigation and warranting reduction in the sentence to be imposed. [38]See R v Granz-Glenn [2023] QCA 157 citing R v Watson [2021] QCA 225 at [24]; R v WBV [2023] QCA 79 at [37] to [40]. [39]Referring to R v DAC [2023] QCA 53 at [31]-[33], citing R v Ungvari [201…
R v Moy
[2024] QCA 4 Para 2

…R v Simeon [2000] QCA 470; R v Mooka [2007] QCA 36; R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117; R v Skondin [2015] QCA 138; R v Callow [2017] QCA 304; R v Granz-Glenn [2023] QCA 157. R v Simeon…
R v Jones
[2023] QCA 212 Para 9

…one‑third of the head sentence. See R v Lilley [2021] QCA 52 [49] (Rafter AJ; Sofronoff P and Boddice J agreeing). Recently, in R v Granz‑Glenn [2023] QCA 157 [12] Bond JA (Flanagan JA and Bradley J agreeing) remarked: This Court has acknowledged that the extent of the reduction of a sentence to reflect an early…

View all 5 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

R v WBV
[2023] QCA 79 Para 12

…history.”[7] [5] R v Watson [2021] QCA 225 at [23] per McMurdo and Bond JJA and Kelly J. [6] R v Watson [2021] QCA 225 at [24], see also R v WBV [2023] QCA 79 per Crow J (with whom Dalton and Boddice JJA agreed) at [37] to [40]. [7] R v WBV [2023] QCA 79 at [40].…
R v Oram; R v Hinds
[2022] QCA 244 Para 19

…benefit of a parole eligibility date being fixed at a date earlier than the statutory default of 50% of his head sentence. [12] R v Oram; R v Hinds [2022] QCA 244.…
Kitson v R
[2022] NSWCCA 166 Para 17

…e exercise of her [or his] discretion?”” [9] Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 at [32] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). [10] Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [43]. [11][2017] NSWCCA 303 at [97].…
R v Campbell
[2022] QCA 135 Para 7

…(with whom Dalton J agreed) at [4], R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29 per Gotterson JA (with whom Morrison and McMurdo JJA agreed) at [22] and R v Campbell [2022] QCA 135 per Morrison JJA (with whom Mullins and Bond JJA agreed) at [94]. Ground 2: manifest excess…
R v Watson
[2021] QCA 225 Para 12

…eriod include the specific circumstances of the offender including his antecedents, character, and any prior criminal history.”[7] [5] R v Watson [2021] QCA 225 at [23] per McMurdo and Bond JJA and Kelly J. [6] R v Watson [2021] QCA 225 at [24], see also R v WBV [2023] QCA 79 per Crow J (with whom Dalton and Bodd…
R v TAS
[2021] QCA 49 Para 1

…icant.[14] [13] Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376 at 377; R v Henderson [2014] QCA 12 at [115]; Valsamakis v R [2016] NSWCCA 156 at [162]; R v TAS [2021] QCA 49; Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [46]. [14] Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [51].…
Lloyd v R
[2017] NSWCCA 303 Para 17

…retion?”” [9] Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 at [32] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). [10] Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [43]. [11][2017] NSWCCA 303 at [97].…
R v Minniecon
[2017] QCA 29 Para 7

…nt on ground 2. [2] House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; see R v Coutts [2016] QCA 206 per Fraser JA (with whom Dalton J agreed) at [4], R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29 per Gotterson JA (with whom Morrison and McMurdo JJA agreed) at [22] and R v Campbell [2022] QCA 135 per Morrison JJA (with whom Mullins and Bond JJA…
R v Kilic
[2016] HCA 48

…applied Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376, cited Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166, cited R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited R v Oram; R v Hinds [2022] QCA 244, considered R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v Watson [2021] QCA 225, cited R v WBV [2023] QCA 79, cited COUNSEL: C Mart…
R v Coutts
[2016] QCA 206 Para 7

…ecific error. It must be considered only insofar as it forms part of the argument on ground 2. [2] House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; see R v Coutts [2016] QCA 206 per Fraser JA (with whom Dalton J agreed) at [4], R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29 per Gotterson JA (with whom Morrison and McMurdo JJA agreed) at [22] an…
Valsamakis v R
[2016] NSWCCA 156 Para 1

…of grievance on the part of the applicant.[14] [13] Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376 at 377; R v Henderson [2014] QCA 12 at [115]; Valsamakis v R [2016] NSWCCA 156 at [162]; R v TAS [2021] QCA 49; Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [46]. [14] Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [51].…
R v Pham
[2015] HCA 39

…(2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited R v Oram; R v Hinds [2022] QCA 244, considered R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v Watson [2021] QCA 225, cited R v WBV [2023] QCA 79, cited COUNSEL: C Martinovic for the applicant S L Dennis for the respondent SOLICITORS: Cridland & Hua Lawyers for the…
R v Henderson
[2014] QCA 12 Para 1

…of giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the applicant.[14] [13] Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376 at 377; R v Henderson [2014] QCA 12 at [115]; Valsamakis v R [2016] NSWCCA 156 at [162]; R v TAS [2021] QCA 49; Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [46]. [14] Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 a…
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen
[2011] HCA 49

…ise to a justifiable sense of grievance as would warrant appellate intervention Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, applied Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376, cited Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166, cited R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited R v Oram; R v Hinds [2022] QCA 244, consi…
Jones v The Queen
[2009] HCA 17 Para 1

…ubsequent sentence is objectively capable of giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the applicant.[14] [13] Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376 at 377; R v Henderson [2014] QCA 12 at [115]; Valsamakis v R [2016] NSWCCA 156 at [162]; R v TAS [2021] QCA 49; Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166 at [46].…
Jones v The Queen
[1993] HCATrans 20 Para 1

…but whether the subsequent sentence is objectively capable of giving rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the applicant.[14] [13] Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376 at 377; R v Henderson [2014] QCA 12 at [115]; Valsamakis v R [2016] NSWCCA 156 at [162]; R v TAS [2021] QCA 49; Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 7

…1 fails as a basis for alleged specific error. It must be considered only insofar as it forms part of the argument on ground 2. [2] House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; see R v Coutts [2016] QCA 206 per Fraser JA (with whom Dalton J agreed) at [4], R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29 per Gotterson JA (with whom Morrison and…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 7

…cordingly, ground 1 fails as a basis for alleged specific error. It must be considered only insofar as it forms part of the argument on ground 2. [2] House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; see R v Coutts [2016] QCA 206 per Fraser JA (with whom Dalton J agreed) at [4], R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29 per Gotterson JA (with whom M…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 15)

CITATION:	R v Granz-Glenn [2023] QCA 157
PARTIES:	R v GRANZ-GLENN, Geoffrey Dale (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 205 of 2022 SC No 530 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 August 2022 (Williams J)
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2023
JUDGES:	Bond and Flanagan JJA and Bradley J
ORDER:	Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – where five offenders had been separately sentenced for their part in the unlawful killing of the deceased – where one offender was sentenced after a jury trial in which he was acquitted of felony murder and convicted of manslaughter – where the other four offenders were convicted of manslaughter on their own pleas of guilty – where each offender was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with declarations as to time served but without having parole eligibility dates fixed – where the offender convicted after the jury trial was sentenced on the factual basis of his being criminally negligent – where the other offenders were sentenced on the different factual basis that each of them had been part of a common plan to rob the deceased and her partner and that it had been within their contemplation that violence would be used of such a kind or degree that the commission of an unintentional, unlawful killing was a probable consequence – where the applicant was the last offender to be sentenced – where the sentencing judge considered the operation of the parity principle by references to the sentences imposed on the other offenders and concluded the same sentence was appropriate – whether the differentiation made by the sentencing judge was open to her in the exercise of her discretion – where after the applicant had been sentenced the sentence of one of his co-offenders was varied on appeal by an order that she be eligible for parole after serving one third of her head sentence – where the applicant sought to appeal his sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the disparity between his sentence and the sentence of his co-offender which had been varied on appeal was such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance as would warrant appellate intervention Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, applied Jones v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 376, cited Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166, cited R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited R v Oram; R v Hinds[2022] QCA 244, considered R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v Watson[2021] QCA 225, cited R v WBV[2023] QCA 79, cited
COUNSEL:	C Martinovic for the applicant S L Dennis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Cridland &…