R v Henry - [2002] QCA 520

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Henry [2002] QCA 520

PARTIES:

R
v
HENRY, Travis Scott Jordon

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 272 of 2002

DC No 108 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

27 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 November 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Philippides J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant convicted of 4 counts of rape and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment – where applicant also convicted of 3 counts of breaking and entering and stealing, 1 count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, and one count of stealing – whether manifestly excessive

R v Coghlan [1998] 2 Qd R 498, considered
R v Ivey [1997] QCA 247, CA Nos 68 & 181 of 1997, 19 August 1997, considered

R v Mallie [2000] QCA 188, CA No 49 of 2000, 17 May 2000, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

T A Fuller for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. On 30 July 2002 the applicant pleaded guilty to some nine offences including three counts of breaking and entering premises and stealing, one count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, four counts of rape and one count of stealing.

The applicant was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for the four rape offences and the burglary with circumstances of aggravation and a declaration was made in respect of these offences that the applicant was convicted of serious violent offences. He was also sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for the offences of breaking and entering premises and stealing and six months' imprisonment for the offence of stealing. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

The offences occurred between 11 July 2000 and 31 May 2001 when the applicant was aged between 17 and 19. The circumstances of the offences of breaking and entering and stealing were that the applicant broke into two motor vehicles and was a look-out whilst a third vehicle was broken into.

Various property was stolen from each of the vehicles. The applicant was linked to each of the offences, admitted his involvement when interviewed by police. The last offence occurred after he was interviewed and issued with notices to appear for earlier offences.

The circumstances of the remaining offences of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, rape and stealing were as follows. On 23 May 2001, the applicant broke into the complainant's home by breaking two louvres at the rear of the house. At the time the…

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 Henry

Details

AGLC: R v Henry [2002] QCA 520
Case: [2002] QCA 520
Decision Date: 27 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Henry involved an applicant who had been convicted of multiple serious offences. The applicant was convicted of four counts of rape, three counts of breaking and entering and stealing, one count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, and one count of stealing. The applicant was sentenced to an 11-year imprisonment term. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court had to balance the need to punish the offender with the need to deter similar crimes in the future, while also considering any mitigating factors that might have been relevant to the sentencing.

The court examined the circumstances of each offence and the sentence imposed. It considered the cumulative effect of the multiple convictions and the severity of the crimes. The court noted the significant harm caused by the applicant's actions, particularly the sexual offences, and the need to protect the community. After careful consideration, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentence appropriately reflected the gravity of the crimes and served the purposes of punishment and deterrence.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the original sentence as appropriate and proportionate to the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 Henry [2002] QCA 520
PARTIES:	R v HENRY, Travis Scott Jordon (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 272 of 2002 DC No 108 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Kingaroy
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	27 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 November 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant convicted of 4 counts of rape and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment – where applicant also convicted of 3 counts of breaking and entering and stealing, 1 count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation, and one count of stealing – whether manifestly excessive R v Coghlan [1998] 2 Qd R 498, considered R v Ivey [1997] QCA 247, CA Nos 68 & 181 of 1997, 19 August 1997, considered R v Mallie [2000] QCA 188, CA No 49 of 2000, 17 May 2000, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf T A Fuller for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent