R v Green and Haliday; ex parte - [2003] QCA 259

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Green & Haliday; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 259

PARTIES:

R
v
GREEN, Daniel Ronald
(applicant/respondent)
HALIDAY, Rebecca Mae
(applicant/respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 86 of 2003
CA No 100 of 2003
CA No 84 of 2003
CA No 101 of 2003

SC No 218 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDINGS:

Sentence Applications

Sentence Appeals by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE SON:

19 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies and Williams JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Each respondent’s application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Appeals by the Attorney-General dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where prisoners restrained child in bed – where child died of asphyxiation exacerbated by pneumonia – where prisoners also pleaded guilty to 10 counts of common assault in respect of treatment of child on successive evenings preceding her death – where prisoners cooperated with police, exhibited remorse and pleaded guilty – whether sentences manifestly excessive or inadequate – whether serious violent offender declarations should have been made

Everett & Phillips v R (1994) 181 CLR 295, considered
R v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206; CA No 4 of 1999, 8 June 1999, [2001] 2 Qd R 183, considered
R v Collins [2000] QCA 280; CA No 238 of 1998, 18 September 1998; [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered
R v de Salvo [2002] QCA 63; CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March 2002; (2002) 127 A Crim R 229, applied
R v Hall [2002] QCA 125; CA No 32 of 2002, 5 April 2002, distinguished

R v Institoris (2002) 129 A Crim R 458, considered

R v Irvine [1997] QCA 138; CA No 82 of 1997, 8 May 1997, distinguished
R v Ross [1996] QCA 411; CA No 347 of 1996, 25 October 1996, distinguished

R v Walsh CA No 85 of 1986, considered

COUNSEL:

M Byrne QC for the applicant in CA No 86 of 2003 and for the respondent in CA No 100 of 2003
A Moynihan for the applicant in CA No 84 of 2003 and for the respondent in CA No 101 of 2003

M Copley for the respondent in CA No 86 of 2003 and CA No 84 of 2003 and for the appellant in CA No 100 of 2003 and CA No 101 of 2003

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the…

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 Green and Haliday; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Green and Haliday; ex parte [2003] QCA 259
Case: [2003] QCA 259
Decision Date: 19 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Green and Haliday, appealed against their sentences imposed following their convictions for the manslaughter of a child and multiple counts of common assault. The child had died from asphyxiation exacerbated by pneumonia after being restrained in a bed by the respondents. The respondents also pleaded guilty to ten counts of common assault related to the treatment of the child over several evenings prior to her death. They cooperated with the police, exhibited remorse, and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The respondents argued that their sentences were inadequate, while the Attorney-General sought to appeal on the basis that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court needed to determine whether the sentences were either manifestly inadequate or excessive. The court had to consider the nature and severity of the offences, the respondents' conduct before and after the offences, and whether serious violent offender declarations should have been made. The court needed to assess whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were within the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for the crimes committed.

The court found that the sentences imposed were within the range of reasonable sentences for the crimes committed. The court noted the severity of the offences and the need to deter such conduct in the future. The court also considered the respondents' cooperation with the police, their early guilty pleas, and their expressions of remorse. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate or excessive and, therefore, declined to interfere with the trial judge's sentencing discretion. The court also found that there was no basis for making serious violent offender declarations.

Each respondent's application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appeals by the Attorney-General were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each respondent’s application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Appeals by the Attorney-General dismissed

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 Green & Haliday; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 259
PARTIES:	R v GREEN, Daniel Ronald (applicant/respondent) HALIDAY, Rebecca Mae (applicant/respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 86 of 2003 CA No 100 of 2003 CA No 84 of 2003 CA No 101 of 2003 SC No 218 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS:	Sentence Applications Sentence Appeals by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE SON:	19 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies and Williams JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Each respondent’s application for leave to appeal against sentence refused Appeals by the Attorney-General dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where prisoners restrained child in bed – where child died of asphyxiation exacerbated by pneumonia – where prisoners also pleaded guilty to 10 counts of common assault in respect of treatment of child on successive evenings preceding her death – where prisoners cooperated with police, exhibited remorse and pleaded guilty – whether sentences manifestly excessive or inadequate – whether serious violent offender declarations should have been made Everett & Phillips v R (1994) 181 CLR 295, considered R v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206; CA No 4 of 1999, 8 June 1999, [2001] 2 Qd R 183, considered R v Collins [2000] QCA 280; CA No 238 of 1998, 18 September 1998; [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered R v de Salvo [2002] QCA 63; CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March 2002; (2002) 127 A Crim R 229, applied R v Hall [2002] QCA 125; CA No 32 of 2002, 5 April 2002, distinguished R v Institoris (2002) 129 A Crim R 458, considered R v Irvine [1997] QCA 138; CA No 82 of 1997, 8 May 1997, distinguished R v Ross [1996] QCA 411; CA No 347 of 1996, 25 October 1996, distinguished R v Walsh CA No 85 of 1986, considered
COUNSEL:	M Byrne QC for the applicant in CA No 86 of 2003 and for the respondent in CA No 100 of 2003 A Moynihan for the applicant in CA No 84 of 2003 and for the respondent in CA No 101 of 2003 M Copley for the respondent in CA No 86 of 2003 and CA No 84 of 2003 and for the appellant in CA No 100 of 2003 and CA No 101 of 2003
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the…