R v Harris - [2003] QCA 464

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Harris [2003] QCA 464
PARTIES: R
v
HARRIS, Robert James
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 238 of 2003 CA No 306 of 2003 DC No 3475 of 2002
DC No 1274 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS: Sentence Application
Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 27 October 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 27 October 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Application for extension of time within with to appeal
against conviction abandoned
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT - where applicant sentenced to an effective term
of seven and a half years’ imprisonment with a serious
violent offence declaration - whether learned sentencing
Judge gave insufficient weight to the conduct of the
complainants, the applicant’s plea of guilty and earlier
cooperation with authorities – whether sentence manifestly
excessive
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Part 9A, s 13A
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 18; CA Number
410 of 2002, 5 February 2003, followed
R v Hoogsaad [2001] QCA 27; CA Number 277 of 2000, 8
February 2000, followed
R v Swayn {1998} QCA 171; CA No 59 of 1998, 8 May
1998, followed
COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

2003 at the District Court at Brisbane on his own plea of two
counts of doing grievous bodily harm and one count of assault
occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive
instrument. The prosecution accepted the pleas of guilty to
the counts of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm in full
satisfaction of the indictment which alternatively charged on
each count of grievous bodily harm the more serious offence of
unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The
applicant was sentenced to an effective term of seven and a
half years' imprisonment with a declaration that he was
convicted in respect of each offence of grievous bodily harm
of a serious violent offence under Part 9A, Penalties &
Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). He was also sentenced to concurrent
lesser periods of imprisonment on an ex officio indictment
charging him with breaking and entering premises and stealing
and stealing in May 2000. He was additionally ordered to
serve the balance of nine months of a suspended sentence which
was activated by his conviction on these offences and that
sentence was also ordered to be served concurrently.

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant was convicted on the 18th June to appeal against sentence raises a number of matters but largely emphasises that the learned sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to the conduct of the three complainants in trespassing…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2003] QCA 464
Case: [2003] QCA 464
Decision Date: 27/10/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harris was heard before the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Harris, had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and was sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing that it was excessive and disproportionate to the crime committed. The respondent, the Crown, defended the sentence as appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not adequately weighed mitigating factors, such as his background and the circumstances leading to the crime. The Crown contended that the sentence was justified by the gravity of the offence and the need to deter similar crimes in the future. The court was tasked with reviewing the sentencing process and determining if the trial judge had erred in law or in the exercise of discretion.

The High Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had given due weight to both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case. The judges emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties typically applied for such offences. The court concluded that there was no basis for finding that the trial judge had erred in the exercise of discretion or in the application of legal principles. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The application for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction was also abandoned.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Application for extension of time within with to appeal

against conviction abandoned

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 Harris [2003] QCA 464
PARTIES:	R v HARRIS, Robert James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 238 of 2003 CA No 306 of 2003 DC No 3475 of 2002
DC No 1274 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS:	Sentence Application Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	27 October 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 October 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused Application for extension of time within with to appeal against conviction abandoned
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - where applicant sentenced to an effective term of seven and a half years’ imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration - whether learned sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to the conduct of the complainants, the applicant’s plea of guilty and earlier cooperation with authorities – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Part 9A, s 13A
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 18; CA Number 410 of 2002, 5 February 2003, followed R v Hoogsaad [2001] QCA 27; CA Number 277 of 2000, 8 February 2000, followed R v Swayn {1998} QCA 171; CA No 59 of 1998, 8 May 1998, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent