R v Jack - [2025] QCA 26

[2025] QCA 26

COURT OF APPEAL

BODDICE JA
BROWN JA
CROW J

CA No 214 of 2024
DC No 411 of 2024
DC No 491 of 2024

THE KING

JACK, Joseph Robert Walter Applicant

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 13 MARCH 2025

JUDGMENT

CROW J: The applicant, Mr Jack, was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The applicant seeks leave to appeal that sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, and on the basis of specific error, that the primary Judge proceeded on an error of fact in finding that the victim of the assault remained largely immobile at the time of his death, because of the injury suffered from the offence. The applicant submits that such a finding was not open to the primary Judge. In my view, on the material placed before the primary Judge, that finding was not only open, it was the only finding that was open.

The statement of agreed facts upon which the primary Judge sentenced the applicant established the following matters: (a) on 30 September 2023, the 56 year old complainant was smoking a cigarette in the outdoor smoking area of a licensed premises; (b) the applicant started yelling at the complainant from outside the venue, then jumped over a balustrade, approached the complainant, yelled at him, and punched the complainant in the head; (c) the complainant fell backwards, with his right leg contorting beneath him as he fell to the ground, causing the complainant’s right ankle to be fractured immediately, the complainant’s right ankle bone protruding from his leg; (d) the complainant suffered from a compound fracture dislocation of the right tibia and fibula, which required surgery on 1 October 2023 and 17 October 2023. Although the compound fracture dislocation was reduced, the complainant’s right saphenous vein was irreparably damaged; (e) the complainant remained in hospital for almost a month, until 28 October 2023, when he was discharged.

The victim impact statement established the following matters: (a) after the complainant was discharged from hospital, he was wheelchair-bound for about three months, from late October 2023, to early February 2024; (b) from early February 2024, the complainant, an electrician, had been rendered unable to work, unable to drive a vehicle, and unable to weight bear on his damaged right leg. He became quite depressed and suffered from, quoting from the victim impact statement of the complainant’s father, a total change in his life, which made it very hard for Anthony to cope; (c) the complainant struggled financially and did not submit medical certificates, so he missed out on payments from work and Centrelink. He required his family’s financial assistance for ordinary living expenses. He became very anxious and had trouble sleeping at night; and (d) the complainant passed away in April 2024 from unrelated liver cirrhosis.

The applicant’s complaint is that the evidence did not sufficiently support the factual finding the complainant was largely immobile as a result of the injury sustained. As it may be observed from…

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 Jack

Details

AGLC: R v Jack [2025] QCA 26
Case: [2025] QCA 26
Decision Date: 13 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jack involved Joseph Robert Walter Jack, who was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for committing grievous bodily harm. Jack sought leave to appeal his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and that the primary judge had erred in finding that the victim remained largely immobile due to the injuries sustained. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the primary judge's finding about the victim's immobility was open to them based on the evidence presented.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence and concluded that the primary judge’s finding that the victim was largely immobile was reasonable given the extent of his injuries. The victim suffered a compound fracture dislocation of the right tibia and fibula, which required surgery and left him wheelchair-bound for three months. The victim's ability to work, drive, and bear weight on his injured leg was severely impaired, significantly altering his lifestyle and mobility. The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge’s assessment of the victim’s immobility. The court further noted that the applicant's criminal history and prior convictions for serious offences were significant factors in the sentencing process. The comparison with other cases cited by the applicant, such as R v Ford, R v Dietz, and R v Green, was deemed inapt due to the markedly different facts and antecedents of the offenders involved. The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the primary judge had correctly considered the applicant’s background and personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the primary judge's sentencing decision. The judges emphasised that the sentence imposed was within the bounds of judicial discretion and did not demonstrate a misapplication of principle. The primary judge had appropriately balanced the severity of the offence with the applicant’s personal circumstances, leading to the conclusion that the sentence was neither unreasonable nor manifestly excessive.

Orders