R v Harvey

Case [2003] QCA 286


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v Harvey [2003] QCA 286
PARTIES:  R
v
HARVEY, Murray Wayne
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 112 of 2003
DC No 44 of 2003
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: 
District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX 10 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  10 July 2003
JUDGES:  Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDERS:  1. Allow the application for leave to appeal against
sentence
2. Vary the sentence imposed by an order that the
sentence of two years imprisonment be suspended after
the applicant has served 12 months, with an operational
period of three years
CATCHWORDS:  CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted at trial of doing grievous bodily harm – where applicant contends that sentence imposed should have been partly suspended having regard to his youth and prior good behaviour – where mitigating circumstances in relevant case authority not present in applicant’s case – where changes to Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld) require applicant to serve two thirds of sentence before he can apply for release on remission or conditional release – whether sentence manifestly excessive in the circumstances
Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 134
R v Dodd [1998] QCA 323; CA No 241 of 1998, 17
September 1998, distinguished
R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June
1999, distinguished
R v Grimley [2000] QCA 064; CA No 362 of 1999, 14 March
2000, considered
COUNSEL:  The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

JERRARD JA: Murray Harvey was convicted in the Maroochydore District Court on 21st March 2003 by the verdict of a jury of having unlawfully done grievous bodily harm to Jason Clarke on 2 September 2001 at Noosa Heads, in Queensland. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and has applied for leave to appeal against that sentence. He contends the sentence is manifestly excessive because no part of it was suspended having regard to his youth and prior good behaviour.

Mr Harvey was 28 when he committed the offence, and 29 when sentenced. He had no prior convictions and had spent no time in custody. The view of the evidence led at his trial, which is most consistent with his conviction, is that he punched Jason Clarke once, to the jaw.

Mr Clarke had been asked to leave Barney's Bar and Bistro at Noosa Heads, when Mr Harvey was then working as a barman. Mr Clarke had left, perhaps with some assistance from Mr Harvey and wished to re-enter. Mr Clarke was looking elsewhere during the moments in which Mr Harvey stepped towards him and hit…

Continue reading R v Harvey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Harvey [2003] QCA 286
Case
[2003] QCA 286
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harvey, the applicant was convicted at trial for doing grievous bodily harm. The applicant sought to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it should have been partly suspended due to his youth and prior good behaviour. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offender.

The court considered the relevant case law and statutory provisions, including the changes to the Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), which require the applicant to serve two-thirds of his sentence before he can apply for release on remission or conditional release. The court found that while the mitigating circumstances in the relevant case authority were not present in the applicant's case, his age and prior good behaviour were significant factors. Given these considerations, the court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and varied the sentence by ordering that it be suspended after the applicant had served 12 months, with an operational period of three years. The court allowed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence and made the specified variation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the application for leave to appeal against

sentence

2. Vary the sentence imposed by an order that the

sentence of two years imprisonment be suspended after

the applicant has served 12 months, with an operational

period of three years

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.