SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Jurd [2007] QCA 228
PARTIES:
R
v
JURD, Clint Bernie
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 74 of 2007
DC No 1485 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
19 July 2007DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 July 2007
JUDGES:
Williams and Keane JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant pleaded guilty to offences of burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm and stealing – where appellant sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 14 months – where applicant contends trial judge failed to give sufficiently discount the sentence for the applicant's cooperation in naming his co-offender – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Abednego[2004] QCA 377, cited
R v Bowe; R v Taylor[2004] QCA 414, cited
R v Bower-Miles & Smith[1995] QCA 453, cited
R v. Blenkinsop; R v Blenkinsop[2007] QCA 181, cited
R v Gompelman[2002] QCA 191, cited
R v Hardman [2001] QCA 15, cited
R v Hess[2003] QCA 553, cited
R v Houghton & Genrich[1998] QCA 137, cited
R v Kraaz[2006] QCA 520, cited
R v Porter[2002] QCA 59, cited
R v Salmon ex parte Attorney-General[2002] QCA 262, cited
R v Zerafa [1992] QCA 61, citedCOUNSEL:
A W Moynihan SC for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of four years' imprisonment with parole eligibility fixed at 13 May 2008, that is, after serving 14 months, imposed on the applicant after he pleaded guilty to offences of burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm and stealing.
In the written submissions in support of the application, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing Judge did not give sufficient discounting for the fact that the applicant named his co-offender.
In the light of the filing by the respondent of the affidavit of Wayne Edward Butcher, that ground has been abandoned.
The applicant was born on 2 May 1971, making him 36 years of age when the offences were committed on 29 April 2006. He was sentenced in the District Court at Gladstone on 13 March 2007. The applicant knew the 41 year old male complainant.
At about 10.45 p.m. on 29 April 2006, accompanied by another man, the applicant forced open the door and entered the complainant's caravan in a caravan park…
Continue reading R v Jurd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Jurd [2007] QCA 228
- Case
- [2007] QCA 228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and the factors considered in arriving at the sentence. It noted that the trial judge had taken into account the appellant's cooperation but had also considered the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in sentencing the appellant and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also noted that the appellant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the sentence was disproportionately harsh.
The court dismissed the appellant's application for a reduced sentence. It found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in sentencing the appellant and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court further found that the appellant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the sentence was disproportionately harsh. The application was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.