R v Hall; ex parte Attorney-General - [2002] QCA 125

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Hall [2002] QCA 125
PARTIES: R
v
HALL, Gregory John
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No32 of 2002
SC No 598 of 2000
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 5 April 2002
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 21 March 2002
JUDGES: Williams JA, White and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER: 1. Appeal allowed;
2. Set aside the sentence of 4 years imprisonment and in
lieu thereof impose a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.
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 a sentence of 4 years imprisonment imposed on the respondent consequent upon his pleading guilty to a charge of the manslaughter of his baby son – where previous conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm to 15 day old baby – whether sentence outside the scope of a proper sentencing discretion – whether manifest inadequacy - R v Irvine distinguished – whether a serious violent offence declaration should be imposed – where sentence of 4 years imprisonment set aside and 6 years imprisonment substituted
Criminal Code (Qld) s669A(1)
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(4)(g)
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered
R v Auberson & Attorney-General of Queensland [1996]
QCA 321; CA No 248 of 1996, 3 September 1996,
considered
R v De Salvo [2002] QCA 63; CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March
2002, considered
R v Irvine & Attorney-General of Queensland [1997] QCA
138; CA No 82 of 1997, 8 May 1997, distinguished
R v Keating [2002] QCA 19; CA No 251of 2001, 6 February
2002, considered
R v Melano; ex-parte Attorney-General (1995) 2 QdR 186,
considered
R v Ross [1996] 411; CA No 347 of 1996, 25 October 1996,
considered
R v Walsh CA No 85 of 1986, 12 June 1986, considered
COUNSEL: P Rutledge for the appellant
A W Moynihan for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The Attorney-General of Queensland appeals against a sentence of 4 years imprisonment imposed on the respondent consequent upon his pleading guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The deceased was the baby son of the respondent.
The baby received injuries on the evening of 13-14 June 1999 when some 19 days old. The material establishes that the baby had been screaming and the respondent claimed he gave him “a little bit of a shake”. Thereafter the baby was given a bottle and was apparently quiet. At about 6.40am on 14 June the baby was taken by the respondent to the Logan Hospital. That was some hours after…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hall; ex parte Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QCA 125
Decision Date: 5/04/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hall involved the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his infant son, resulting in a sentence of four years imprisonment. The Attorney-General sought to appeal the adequacy of this sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate given the respondent's previous conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm to the same infant when the child was only 15 days old. The legal question before the court was whether the sentence imposed was outside the scope of proper sentencing discretion or manifestly inadequate.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the precedent set by R v Irvine, which provided guidance on assessing the adequacy of sentences in cases involving serious offences against the person. It was noted that while the prior conviction did not automatically increase the severity of the sentence, it was a relevant factor that needed to be weighed in the sentencing process. The court found that the sentence of four years was indeed manifestly inadequate, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also considered the need to impose a serious violent offence declaration as part of the sentence.

In light of the above, the court allowed the appeal by the Attorney-General. The original sentence of four years imprisonment was set aside and replaced with a sentence of six years imprisonment, reflecting the court's view that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed;

2. Set aside the sentence of 4 years imprisonment and in

lieu thereof impose a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

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 Hall [2002] QCA 125
PARTIES:	R v HALL, Gregory John (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No32 of 2002 SC No 598 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2002
JUDGES:	Williams JA, White and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the sentence of 4 years imprisonment and in lieu thereof impose a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.
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 a sentence of 4 years imprisonment imposed on the respondent consequent upon his pleading guilty to a charge of the manslaughter of his baby son – where previous conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm to 15 day old baby – whether sentence outside the scope of a proper sentencing discretion – whether manifest inadequacy - R v Irvine distinguished – whether a serious violent offence declaration should be imposed – where sentence of 4 years imprisonment set aside and 6 years imprisonment substituted
Criminal Code (Qld) s669A(1)
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(4)(g)
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered R v Auberson & Attorney-General of Queensland [1996] QCA 321; CA No 248 of 1996, 3 September 1996, considered R v De Salvo [2002] QCA 63; CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March 2002, considered R v Irvine & Attorney-General of Queensland [1997] QCA 138; CA No 82 of 1997, 8 May 1997, distinguished R v Keating [2002] QCA 19; CA No 251of 2001, 6 February 2002, considered R v Melano; ex-parte Attorney-General (1995) 2 QdR 186, considered R v Ross [1996] 411; CA No 347 of 1996, 25 October 1996, considered R v Walsh CA No 85 of 1986, 12 June 1986, considered
COUNSEL:	P Rutledge for the appellant A W Moynihan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent