Legal Research
Cases
R v Jones

R v Jones

Case [2023] QCA 212 3 November 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jones [2023] QCA 212

PARTIES:

R
v
JONES, Reggae Holly
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 238 of 2022
DC No 1144 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 7 October 2022 (Moynihan KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 September 2023

JUDGES:

Flanagan JA, Buss AJA and Kelly J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm (count 1), dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, before leaving the scene (count 2) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for count 1 and four years’ imprisonment for count 2 to be served cumulatively – where the applicant was consuming alcohol with a complainant known to her at the applicant’s home unit and then stabbed the complainant in the chest with a knife (count 1) – where the applicant, whilst on bail for count 1, was driving under the influence of alcohol and deliberately used her motor vehicle to collide with another complainant’s motorcycle which inflicted severe injuries on the complainant and did not remain at the scene of the collision until police arrived nor secure medical treatment for the complainant (count 2) – where the applicant had a reasonably extensive criminal history – whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the deliberate use of the vehicle in count 2 was a “quintessential serious violence offence” that warranted deferring the statutory eligibility date for parole beyond the 50% mark – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184, s 184(2)
Criminal Code (Qld), s 320, s 328A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 13, s 160A, s 160B, s 160C, s 160D, s 161A, s 161B

R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, considered
R v Barker[2013] QCA 340, cited
R v Browne[2016] QCA 111, cited
R v Bussey[2003] QCA 197, cited
R v Dancey[2013] QCA 135, cited
R v Free; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, followed
R v Granz‑Glenn[2023] QCA 157, cited
R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld)[2013] QCA 63, cited
R v Lilley[2021] QCA 52, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, followed
R v Presgrave[2014] QCA 105, cited
R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, cited

COUNSEL:

R C Taylor for the applicant
A J Walklate and N M Butler for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FLANAGAN JA: I…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2023] QCA 212
Case: [2023] QCA 212
Decision Date: 3 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved the applicant appealing against the sentence imposed on her for two offences: grievous bodily harm and dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, before leaving the scene. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for the first count and four years’ imprisonment for the second count, to be served cumulatively. The applicant consumed alcohol with a complainant at her home unit before stabbing him in the chest with a knife. While on bail for the first offence, the applicant drove under the influence of alcohol, deliberately collided with another complainant's motorcycle, causing severe injuries, and failed to remain at the scene of the collision or secure medical treatment for the injured complainant. The applicant had a reasonably extensive criminal history.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the deliberate use of the vehicle in the second count was a "quintessential serious violence offence" that warranted deferring the statutory eligibility date for parole beyond the 50% mark, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the deliberate use of the vehicle in the second count as a quintessential serious violence offence. The court held that the deliberate use of a motor vehicle as a weapon, while under the influence of alcohol, demonstrated a high degree of premeditation and a blatant disregard for the safety of others, warranting a severe sentence. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the severity of the injuries caused to both complainants and the applicant's criminal history.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the offences and the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in such behaviour. The court further found that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and there were no grounds for interfering with the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence. My reasons are as follows.The facts and circumstances of the offences The facts and circumstances of the offences, as set out in a statement of facts tendered at the sentencing hearing, were agreed by the Crown and the applicant. As to count 1, the complainant, Mr Thompson, and the applicant had known each other for about a year before the offending. On 6 December 2020, Mr Thompson, Nathan Cassidy and the applicant were at the applicant’s home unit. Mr Cassidy was a friend of the applicant and was known to Mr Thompson. Each of them had been consuming alcohol. Mr Thompson said “when we are drunk we talk a lot of rubbish”. He recalled that he must have said something upsetting to the applicant because she said “shut up or I’ll stab you”. Mr Thompson, not thinking that the applicant’s threat was genuine, responded “if you’ve got the balls lady, do it”. The applicant then went to the kitchen and returned with a knife. She stabbed Mr Thompson in the chest (count 1). He fell from his seat onto the floor. After some time, Mr Cassidy called the triple-0 emergency number. He was reluctant to tell the operator what had happened. Mr Thompson told the operator that he had been stabbed. Mr Cassidy said that the stabbing was an accident. Shortly afterwards, police and an ambulance arrived at the applicant’s home unit. Mr Thompson was conveyed to hospital. Mr Thompson suffered the following injuries:(a)a penetrating injury to the anterior chest wall centred on the fourth intercostal space;(b)a moderate haemothorax on the right side of the chest;(c)a mediastinal collection/haematoma adjacent to the right heart border; and(d)a hepatic laceration through segment IVa to V and arterial bleeding from the hepatic arteries. Mr Thompson had a large active haemorrhage from the right middle hepatic artery. His left hepatic artery had multiple sites of haemorrhage. Mr Thompson was treated in hospital and discharged on 21 December 2020. The medical opinion was that:(a)Mr Thompson’s wounds were consistent with having been stabbed in the chest with a sharp bladed instrument;(b)Mr Thompson required urgent medical intervention to save his life; and(c)Mr Thompson’s injuries, if left untreated, would have been likely to have endangered his life from a respiratory compromise and/or a massive blood loss. On 6 December 2020, when police arrived at the applicant’s home unit, the applicant told the police that she was not present when Mr Thompson was stabbed. She had been in the toilet. When she emerged she discovered that Mr Thompson had been stabbed. The applicant told the police that she did not see the knife, she remained on her chair drinking alcohol and she “couldn’t do anything to help”. Mr Cassidy told police that when he arrived at the applicant’s home unit the applicant was in the bathroom. He spoke to Mr Thompson. After about five to 15 minutes Mr Thompson stood and said he was feeling unwell. Mr Thompson asked Mr Cassidy to call an ambulance. Mr Cassidy said he did not know what had happened.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ground 2 fails.Conclusion In my opinion, the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed. KELLY J: I agree with Buss AJA.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Jones [2023] QCA 212

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 12 of 12 shown

R v Granz-Glenn
[2023] QCA 157 Para 9

…one‑third of the head sentence. See R v Lilley [2021] QCA 52 [49] (Rafter AJ; Sofronoff P and Boddice J agreeing). Recently, in R v Granz‑Glenn [2023] QCA 157 [12] Bond JA (Flanagan JA and Bradley J agreeing) remarked: This Court has acknowledged that the extent of the reduction of a sentence to reflect an early…
R v Lilley
[2021] QCA 52 Para 9

…re is no inflexible rule that a plea of guilty must be recognised by fixing a non‑parole period of one‑third of the head sentence. See R v Lilley [2021] QCA 52 [49] (Rafter AJ; Sofronoff P and Boddice J agreeing). Recently, in R v Granz‑Glenn [2023] QCA 157 [12] Bond JA (Flanagan JA and Bradley J agreeing) remar…
R v Free; Ex parte
[2020] QCA 58 Para 6

…In R v Free; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld) [2020] QCA 58; (2020) 4 QR 80, the Attorney‑General appealed against a sentence imposed on the respondent for three counts. The Attorney‑General contended, relevantly, that the sentencing judge erred in failing to declare the offence in count 1 a serious violent offen…
R v Randall
[2019] QCA 25 Para 9

…te is unfettered. The significance of a plea of guilty in the context of the exercise of that discretion will vary from case to case. See R v Randall [2019] QCA 25 [43] (Sofronoff P, Morrison JA and Burns J). There is no inflexible rule that a plea of guilty must be recognised by fixing a non‑parole period of on…
R v Browne
[2016] QCA 111 Para 13

…Counsel referred to a number of prior cases including R v Dancey [2013] QCA 135, R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105, R v Browne [2016] QCA 111, R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197 and R v Barker [2013] QCA 340. It was submitted that those cases support the contention that the aggregate sentence imposed in the present case is man…
R v Presgrave
[2014] QCA 105 Para 13

…Counsel referred to a number of prior cases including R v Dancey [2013] QCA 135, R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105, R v Browne [2016] QCA 111, R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197 and R v Barker [2013] QCA 340. It was submitted that those cases support the contention that the aggregate sentence imposed in the present case is man…
R v Barker
[2013] QCA 340 Para 13

…of prior cases including R v Dancey [2013] QCA 135, R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105, R v Browne [2016] QCA 111, R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197 and R v Barker [2013] QCA 340. It was submitted that those cases support the contention that the aggregate sentence imposed in the present case is manifestly excessive “due to the…
R v Dancey
[2013] QCA 135 Para 13

…Counsel referred to a number of prior cases including R v Dancey [2013] QCA 135, R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105, R v Browne [2016] QCA 111, R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197 and R v Barker [2013] QCA 340. It was submitted that those cases support the contention that the aggregate sentence imposed in the present case is man…
R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)
[2013] QCA 63 Para 1

…2 was underscored by a number of features. Her use of her vehicle as a weapon was aggravating. See R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld) [2013] QCA 63 [54] (Margaret Wilson J; Muir JA and Douglas J agreeing). The applicant inflicted severe injuries on Mr Davies. She did not remain at the scene of the co…
R v Assurson
[2007] QCA 273 Para 5

…In R v Assurson [2007] QCA 273; (2007) 174 A Crim R 78 [22], Williams JA (Keane JA and Mullins J relevantly agreeing) noted that in McDougall & Collas this Court pointed out that a sentencing court could, “for good reason”, exercise the power conferred by s 160C(5) to postpone eligibility for parole beyond the ha…
R v McDougall and Collas
[2006] QCA 365 Para 4

…In R v McDougall & Collas [2006] QCA 365; [2007] 2 Qd R 87, this Court (Jerrard, Keane and Holmes JJA) made these comments about the exercise of the discretion conferred by s 161B(4) of the Penalties and Sentences Act [19] ‑ [21]: It is where the making of a declaration is discretionary that a difference in views…
R v Bussey
[2003] QCA 197 Para 13

…Counsel referred to a number of prior cases including R v Dancey [2013] QCA 135, R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105, R v Browne [2016] QCA 111, R v Bussey [2003] QCA 197 and R v Barker [2013] QCA 340. It was submitted that those cases support the contention that the aggregate sentence imposed in the present case is man…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld)
184 2 mentions (from Para 4)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
4 2 mentions (from Para 2)

CITATION:	R v Jones [2023] QCA 212
PARTIES:	R v JONES, Reggae Holly (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 238 of 2022 DC No 1144 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 7 October 2022 (Moynihan KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 September 2023
JUDGES:	Flanagan JA, Buss AJA and Kelly J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm (count 1), dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, before leaving the scene (count 2) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for count 1 and four years’ imprisonment for count 2 to be served cumulatively – where the applicant was consuming alcohol with a complainant known to her at the applicant’s home unit and then stabbed the complainant in the chest with a knife (count 1) – where the applicant, whilst on bail for count 1, was driving under the influence of alcohol and deliberately used her motor vehicle to collide with another complainant’s motorcycle which inflicted severe injuries on the complainant and did not remain at the scene of the collision until police arrived nor secure medical treatment for the complainant (count 2) – where the applicant had a reasonably extensive criminal history – whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the deliberate use of the vehicle in count 2 was a “quintessential serious violence offence” that warranted deferring the statutory eligibility date for parole beyond the 50% mark – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184, s 184(2) Criminal Code (Qld), s 320, s 328A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 13, s 160A, s 160B, s 160C, s 160D, s 161A, s 161B R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, considered R v Barker[2013] QCA 340, cited R v Browne[2016] QCA 111, cited R v Bussey[2003] QCA 197, cited R v Dancey[2013] QCA 135, cited R v Free; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld) (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58, followed R v Granz‑Glenn[2023] QCA 157, cited R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld)[2013] QCA 63, cited R v Lilley[2021] QCA 52, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, followed R v Presgrave[2014] QCA 105, cited R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, cited
COUNSEL:	R C Taylor for the applicant A J Walklate and N M Butler for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent