R v Haughton - [1997] QCA 281

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 281

PINCUS JA
SHEPHERDSON J

WHITE J

CA No 219 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

TREVOR JON HAUGHTON	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 06/08/97
JUDGMENT
060897 T13/JB M/T COA173/97

WHITE J: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with a dangerous weapon in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton on 8 May 1997. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months and seeks leave to appeal on the ground that, in all the circumstances, the sentence was manifestly excessive and that a lesser period of detention ought to have been imposed together with a lengthy period of probation. The applicant was aged 25 years at the date of the offence on 4 October 1994 and had no previous criminal history.

The circumstances of the offence are these. The applicant resided in a caravan with his wife and child. A dispute had occurred between them on the evening of 4 October. He left and returned home about 11 o'clock affected by alcoholic liquor. The relationship between the applicant and his wife had already commenced to deteriorate and his wife then decided to leave and to take the child with her that evening.

When he returned home the applicant began to abuse his wife. She was in the process of taking her bags to the car and the complainant, one Dooley, who lived next door came to her assistance. The applicant did not accept that his wife was leaving him and matters developed to the point where he tried to pull the child out of his wife's arms. His wife resisted and the applicant punched her in the face.

Dooley and another man intervened and restrained the applicant and held him down until the applicant's wife and child had left in the car. The two men released the applicant and punches were

2 JUDGMENT

060897 T13/JB M/T COA173/97

exchanged between Dooley and the applicant.

Dooley walked back to his caravan and observed the applicant looking into his utility, going into his caravan, returning to the utility and removing an axe from it. The applicant walked towards Dooley shouting that he was going to kill him. Dooley picked up a stool for protection. When the applicant was 10 to 15 feet away from Dooley he threw the axe at him.

The axe hit Dooley in the upper left side of the chest with the heel of the blade. It caused him substantial pain with his legs buckling and he fell to the ground. Dooley had little memory of what followed. He was taken to hospital and was noted to have suffered abrasions and complained of pain in the left shoulder radiating into the left anterior chest wall associated with some tingling in the left hand. He was admitted to hospital for pain relief and observation. A chest X-ray was normal and an X-ray of the left shoulder showed no definite abnormality but the commencement of some soft tissue damage.

The photographs…

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 Haughton

Details

AGLC: R v Haughton [1997] QCA 281
Case: [1997] QCA 281
Decision Date: 6/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Haughton, the applicant appealed against his sentence for assault occasioning bodily harm while armed with a dangerous weapon. The applicant, Trevor Jon Haughton, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that a lesser period of detention, coupled with a lengthy period of probation, should have been imposed.

The Court of Appeal examined the circumstances of the offence, the applicant's background, and the factors considered by the sentencing judge. The applicant had no previous criminal history and had suffered a serious head injury in 1989, which had left him with physical and psychological deficits. Despite these factors, the Court of Appeal found that the attack was unjustified and frightening, and the use of the axe warranted a custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant had made a pledge to abstain from alcohol and had accepted that his marriage had ended.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentencing judge had recognised the applicant's early plea, the absence of homicidal intent, and the effect of the applicant's previous brain damage. However, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the applicant's difficult personal circumstances and the fortuitous outcome for the complainant. The Court of Appeal found that an appropriate sentence would have been six months imprisonment, followed by two years probation, taking into account the applicant's age, good work history, deficits, and plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal allowed the application, set aside the sentence imposed below, and imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment with probation for two years.

The Court of Appeal further directed that the applicant must consent to undergo probation, including such counselling as the probation officer deemed appropriate. The matter was adjourned to allow the applicant's counsel to provide the necessary explanations and obtain the applicant's consent to the probation order.

Orders