R v HONEYSETT, Victor Allan William (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:
CA No 39 of 2010 CA No 53 of 2010 DC No 410 of 2009
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
13 August 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 June 2010
JUDGES:
Chief Justice and Fraser JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser JA and Atkinson J concurring as to the orders made, Chief Justice dissenting
ORDERS:
1. Application for leave to appeal and appeal allowed only to the extent that the recommendation for release on parole be replaced by a parole eligibility date of 20 October 2011.
2. The sentence is otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm, breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence, doing grievous bodily harm with intent, robbery while in company and armed with an offensive weapon, and using other personal violence – where applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence of eight years, imposed in relation to the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent, was manifestly excessive and because the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to considerations in s 9 Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld) – where complainant suffered a range of injuries and offence was violent – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY CROWN – EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – OTHER MATTERS – where respondent committed numerous offences on successive days in relation to the one victim – where respondent sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where lesser terms of imprisonment imposed in relation to other offences committed by respondent – where all terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently – where Attorney-General appeals the sentence imposed for the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent on the grounds of inadequacy and that the sentencing judge erred in recommending early parole – where appellant contends that the eight year sentence should be varied by deleting the recommendation as to parole and adding a serious violent offence declaration – whether the eight year sentence should be varied by deleting the recommendation as to parole and adding a serious violent offence declaration
[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 Honeysett; ex parte
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Honeysett; ex parte [2010] QCA 212
Case
[2010] QCA 212
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of R v Honeysett; ex parte involved the applicant, Honeysett, who had pleaded guilty to a series of serious offences, including assault occasioning bodily harm, breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence, doing grievous bodily harm with intent, robbery while armed and in company, and using personal violence. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where Honeysett sought leave to appeal against his sentence, specifically the eight-year term imposed for the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent. He argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider certain factors outlined in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, considering the severity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the victim. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant statutory considerations in determining the sentence. The court also had to address the Attorney-General's appeal concerning the adequacy of the sentence and the recommendation for early parole. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was inadequate and that the recommendation for parole was inappropriate, while Honeysett contended that the recommendation for parole should be replaced with a serious violent offence declaration.
In its reasoning, the court found that while the offence was indeed violent and the victim sustained significant injuries, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. However, the court did find that the recommendation for parole was inappropriate given the nature of the crime and the potential risk to public safety. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal only to the extent of replacing the parole recommendation with a specific parole eligibility date. The rest of the sentence was confirmed, maintaining the eight-year term of imprisonment for the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal and appeal allowed only to the extent that the recommendation for release on parole be replaced by a parole eligibility date of 20 October 2011.