R v Jurd

Case [2007] QCA 228


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 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


19 July 2007

DELIVERED 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 made

ORDER:

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, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan SC for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

Details
AGLC
R v Jurd [2007] QCA 228
Case
[2007] QCA 228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jurd, the appellant, Jurd, pleaded guilty to various offences including burglary, assault occasioning bodily harm, and stealing. The court sentenced Jurd to four years imprisonment with eligibility for parole after serving 14 months. Jurd appealed against the sentence, arguing that the trial judge did not sufficiently discount the sentence for his cooperation in naming his co-offender, and that the sentence was therefore manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's sentencing decision was appropriate given the appellant's cooperation and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

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.