R v Jackson - [1998] QCA 265

COURT OF APPEAL

[1998] QCA 265

de JERSEY CJ DERRINGTON J

CA No 145 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

LAWRENCE JOHN JACKSON	(Applicant)
BRISBANE ..DATE 16/07/98
JUDGMENT
160798 D.1 T6/SB21 M/T COA159/98

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant, who is a 29 year old man, pleaded guilty to the charges contained in two indictments. On the first indictment he pleaded guilty to burglary for which he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment; unlawful wounding, three years; assault occasioning bodily harm and deprivation of liberty, 12 months; and aggravated indecent assault, five years.

On the second indictment he pleaded guilty to housebreaking and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and three months for stealing. For the purposes of this application, one need consider only the first set of charges.

The applicant lived with the female complainant for about seven years and they had children together. It was a troubled relationship. The applicant came to believe that the complainant was being unfaithful to him. After consuming a lot of alcohol he tracked her down to a motel room where she was present with the other male complainant.

The applicant was carrying a knife. He burst open the door. There was a scuffle. He inflicted a five centimetre long wound of some depth on the male complainant. The male complainant, I note, has apparently recovered well. The applicant also assaulted the female complainant and took her in his car against her will back to the place where they had been living together. The applicant continued to assault her and forced her to commit an act of oral sex upon him.

2 JUDGMENT

160798 D.1 T6/SB21 M/T COA159/98

The learned sentencing Judge focused on the burglary, the wounding and the indecent assault as the most serious of the crimes committed. He accepted that the applicant was remorseful but identified no other ground for mitigation beyond the pleas of guilty. His sentencing remarks indicate that he reduced a prima facie applicable sentence of nine years for the burglary, seven years for the indecent assault and five years for the wounding by two years in each case because of the pleas of guilty.

Accordingly, the applicant was sentenced to seven years for the burglary, five years for the aggravated indecent assault and three years for the wounding, all sentences to be served concurrently.

It remains to observe that the applicant had a substantial prior criminal history including drug and dishonesty offences, breaking, entering and stealing, for example, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle and had previously been imprisoned.

For the applicant, counsel made the points that the male complainant could not be located when it came to the assembling of the Crown evidence and he referred to a suggestion that the female complainant had told the police that she wanted the charges withdrawn.

Reference was made also to the lack of consequence from the wounding and that the oral sex had been a feature of the applicant's relationship with the female complainant in somewhat happier times.…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson [1998] QCA 265
Case: [1998] QCA 265
Decision Date: 16/07/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jackson, the applicant, Lawrence John Jackson, appealed against his sentence following his guilty plea to multiple charges including burglary, unlawful wounding, assault occasioning bodily harm and deprivation of liberty, and aggravated indecent assault. The sentencing judge imposed sentences of seven years for burglary, five years for aggravated indecent assault, and three years for wounding, to be served concurrently. Jackson, who had a substantial criminal history, argued that the sentences for burglary and aggravated indecent assault were excessively high and did not adequately reflect his guilty pleas. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were within the permissible range and whether they were manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that, although the sentences were substantial, they fell within the range established by previous cases for similar conduct. The Court highlighted the gravity of Jackson's conduct, the need for deterrence, and the importance of marking public disapproval of such violent acts. The judges noted that while the sentences were at the top of the range, they did not demonstrate manifest excessiveness. Consequently, the Court of Appeal found that it would not be justified in interfering with the sentences. The application was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The Court of Appeal's judgment emphasised the severity of the crimes committed, the fear inflicted on the victims, and the need for strong deterrent sentences in cases of domestic violence. The judges underscored the importance of reflecting the gravity of the conduct through the sentences imposed, and the necessity of protecting the public from such violent behaviour. The Court concluded that the sentences, although severe, were not outside the permissible range and did not warrant judicial intervention.

Orders