R v Harris - [2000] QCA 217

[2000] QCA 217

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
PINCUS JA
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 370 of 1999

THE QUEEN

JOHN EDWARD HARRIS Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/06/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant was charged with murder and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was acquitted of murder after a trial.

On 29 October 1999 he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment which necessarily involved a declaration that the conviction was for a serious violent offence. The sentence was cumulative upon the sentence the applicant was currently serving.

The applicant had an extensive criminal history. In 1989 he was convicted of drug offences and property offences. Later that year he breached his probation and community service orders. In 1990 he committed further offences of dishonesty and offences involving drugs. He was placed on further probation orders. In 1992 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company and armed with an offensive weapon and further property offences. He was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of four years with a recommendation for parole after 12 months.

In 1994 he committed a large number of property offences for which he was sentenced to an effective term of seven years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years and a recommendation that he receive treatment for drug addiction. Also in 1994 he was convicted for breaching home detention and for supplying a dangerous drug within a correctional institution.

He was on parole in respect of the seven year sentence at the time this offence occurred. His full time discharge date on the earlier sentence was 25 January 2002, two years and three months after the date of his sentence on this offence. His sentence then effectively is 12 years and three months when this sentence of 10 years is added to the time he must serve in respect of the breach of his parole.
The Prosecutor at sentence submitted, because of the cumulative effect of any sentence imposed, the appropriate head sentence was in the range of nine to 10 years although otherwise a sentence of 11 to 12 yeas would be called for.

Defence counsel at the sentence submitted that a sentence of seven and a half years cumulative was appropriate bearing in mind the early plea of guilty. This submission is maintained in this application. The applicant claims the appropriate range was six to eight years cumulative imprisonment.

The deceased was an amphetamine addict who supplied drugs to the applicant and others and shared a flat with the applicant for the three months prior to his death. He owned a number of weapons including a .22 pump action rifle, a
.22 lever action rifle and a hand gun which he usually carried.

The applicant and the deceased had been good friends but also had many arguments, sometimes ending in blows. The applicant usually got the worst of the arguments. The deceased had pointed guns at him and discharged guns near him…

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 [2000] QCA 217
Case: [2000] QCA 217
Decision Date: 02/06/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harris, the applicant, John Edward Harris, appealed against his sentence for manslaughter. Harris was initially charged with murder but later pleaded guilty to manslaughter after being acquitted of murder following a trial. The sentencing judge imposed a term of 10 years' imprisonment, which was cumulative upon the sentence Harris was already serving. Harris had a significant criminal history, including convictions for drug offences, property offences, and violent crimes. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered the totality principle, which takes into account the cumulative effect of any sentence imposed, as well as the mitigating factor of the plea of guilty. The Court also compared the sentence imposed in this case with sentences in other similar cases, such as Clements, Griffin and Dunkerton, and Whelen, to determine if the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive. The judges considered the totality principle and the mitigating factor of the plea of guilty, as well as Harris's extensive criminal history and the circumstances of the offence. The Court found that the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was appropriate in all the circumstances, taking proper effect of the mitigating factor of the plea of guilty and the totality principle. The Court of Appeal, therefore, refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The judges unanimously agreed that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the appropriate range considering the totality principle, the mitigating factor of the plea of guilty, and Harris's criminal history.

Orders