Legal Research
Cases
R v Juric

R v Juric

Case [2003] QCA 132 25 March 2003

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Juric [2003] QCA 132

PARTIES:

R
v
JURIC, Joseph Mark
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 431 of 2002
DC No 478 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 March 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal should be granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Sentences imposed at first instance varied only to the extent of setting aside the sentences of two and a half years imprisonment on each of counts two and three and in lieu thereof substituting 18 months imprisonment

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – TOTALITY – where applicant convicted of three charges of serious assault – where assaults included spitting in faces of police officers – where offences committed in breach of suspended sentence – where suspended sentence activated and sentences of two and a half years for the assaults imposed cumulatively – whether sentences for assaults manifestly excessive – whether the accumulation of sentences offended totality principle

R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322; CA No 99 of 2001, 7 August 2001, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Moynihan for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Williams JA. I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour, for the reasons he expresses.

WILLIAMS JA: On 12 December 2002 the applicant was convicted in the District Court on three charges of serious assault (assaulting police) committed on 1 January 2002. Those convictions constituted a breach of a suspended sentence originally imposed on 25 February 2000. The learned sentencing judge ordered that the 10 month suspended sentence be activated, and made the sentences imposed for the offences committed on 1 January 2002 cumulative thereon. Those sentences were 18 months imprisonment for the first count of assault (striking a police officer in the face) and two and a half years imprisonment on each of the second and third counts (spitting blood and saliva into the faces of two police officers).

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the totality of those sentences. Mr Moynihan of counsel who appeared for the applicant quite properly conceded that it was a proper exercise of sentencing discretion to activate the whole of the unexpired portion of the suspended sentence and also to make the term of imprisonment for the serious assaults cumulative on that suspended sentence. His submission that this court should interfere with the sentences imposed was based on two propositions:
(i) the two and a half year sentences of imprisonment were outside…

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 Juric

Details

AGLC: R v Juric [2003] QCA 132
Case: [2003] QCA 132
Decision Date: 25 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Juric, the applicant, Juric, was convicted of three charges of serious assault, which included spitting in the faces of police officers. The offences were committed while Juric was in breach of a previously imposed suspended sentence. The sentences of two and a half years for the assaults were imposed cumulatively. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentences, arguing that they were manifestly excessive and that the cumulative sentencing offended the principle of totality.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences for the assaults were manifestly excessive and whether the accumulation of sentences contravened the totality principle. The court considered the appropriate considerations for sentencing in such circumstances, including the cumulative effect of the sentences, the principle of totality, and the need to ensure that the overall punishment was proportionate to the offending.

The court found that the sentences were indeed manifestly excessive and that the accumulation of sentences contravened the principle of totality. The court held that the sentences imposed were disproportionate and did not reflect the appropriate balance between the severity of the offences and the need to impose a punishment that was commensurate with the offending. The court noted that the principle of totality requires that the overall punishment should not be excessive in relation to the gravity of the offending. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were not in accordance with the principle of totality and that the cumulative effect of the sentences was disproportionate.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentences imposed at first instance. The sentences of two and a half years imprisonment on counts two and three were set aside, and in lieu thereof, sentences of 18 months imprisonment were substituted. The court also granted the applicant leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal should be granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Sentences imposed at first instance varied only to the extent of setting aside the sentences of two and a half years imprisonment on each of counts two and three and in lieu thereof substituting 18 months imprisonment

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Juric [2003] QCA 132

Most Recent Citation

DPP v Moore [2003] VSCA 90

Cases citing this decision · 15 of 15 shown

RXY v Commissioner of Police
[2025] QDC 163 Para 6

…e considered a number of earlier cases of broad comparability. His analysis is promoted by the appellant in support of this appeal also. In R v Juric [2003] QCA 132 a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment was reduced to 18 months for an offence of Assault, striking police officer in the face and spitting blood and s…
WPT v QPS
[2021] QDC 250 Para 18

…It seems to me that the nature, combination and sequence of offending in R v MCL [2017] QCA 114, R v Brown [2013] QCA 185 and R v Juric [2003] QCA 132, unlike the appellant here, involved an assault of a police officer by way of a strike proximate to one additional charge of the more serious assault of police off…
Dawkins v Queensland Police Service
[2018] QDC 161 Para 1

…reliance upon some of those comparative cases, as well as R v Brown .[38] [34] (unreported, Fantin DCJ, Cairns District Court, 8 March 2018) [35] [2003] QCA 132 [36] [2014] QCA 188 [37] [2017] QDC 45 [38] [2013] QCA 185…
Townsend v Commissioner of Police
[2017] QDC 45 Para 1

…im R 37. [79][1996] QCA 120. [80][2007] QCA 48. [81][2009] QCA 248. [82][2008] QCA 1. [83][2013] QCA 185. [84][2015] QCA 180. [85][2000] QCA 176. [86][2003] QCA 132.…
Queensland Police Service v Terare
[2014] QCA 260 Para 1

…Court of Criminal Appeal, Qld, CA No 130 of 1990, 30 August 1990. [21][2011] QCA 218. [22][1996] QCA 120. [23][2006] QCA 122. [24][2007] QCA 48. [25][2003] QCA 132.…
R v Brown
[2013] QCA 185 Para 1

…est any sentence involving more actual custody should be imposed. Defence counsel submitted that no further sentence at all should be imposed. [2][2003] QCA 132. [3][2008] QCA 1.…
R v McLean
[2011] QCA 218 Para 1

…cer but involved other serious assaults and the offender had an extensive criminal history so that it is not fruitful to consider it further. [36][2003] QCA 132. [37]At [11].…
R v Hawton
[2009] QCA 248 Para 1

…t 12 months was "at the higher end of any range" in reliance on R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322 (eight months reduced to three months on appeal); R v Juric [2003] QCA 132 (two and a half years reduced to 18 months on appeal), R v Hamilton [2006] QCA 122 (a nine months sentence undisturbed on appeal) and R v Barry [2007…
R v. Spann
[2008] QCA 279 Para 1

…e applicant’s counsel urged a sentence of no more than six to 12 months imprisonment for the serious assault and referred to the cases of R v Juric [2003] QCA 132, R v Taylor [2004] QCA 447 and R v Holden [2006] QCA 416 in support of that range.…
R v Barry
[2007] QCA 48 Para 1

…ed; he was also convicted of wilful damage, using threatening words, and a breach of a DVRO. His sentence has since been described in R v Juric [2003] QCA 132 as towards the lower end of the range. The apology was obviously important in R v Reuben, just as the absence of an apology for spitting in a police office…
R v Holden
[2006] QCA 416

…The fourth case cited, R v Juric [2003] QCA 132, bears the strongest resemblance on its facts to this case. There, the intoxicated applicant was restrained by police officers but managed to get an arm free and struck one of them in the face. He spat blood and saliva into that officer's face and the face of anothe…
R v Hamilton
[2006] QCA 122 Para 1

…f the appropriate range.”[2] That case does not lead me to the conclusion that the sentence imposed below was manifestly excessive. [2] R v Juric [2003] QCA 132 at para [11], CA No 431 of 2002, 25 March 2003, at para [11].…
Crossley v Cole
[2006] WASC 43

…CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950245; 19 May 1995 McSwan v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 128 Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 192 R v Juric [2003] QCA 132 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124 Warrell v Kay (1995) 83 A Crim R 493 White v Taylor [2001] WASCA 350 Cunningham v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt…
DPP v Moore
[2003] VSCA 90 Para 1

…There is, of course, also the general “unfairness” discretion which the court may exercise to exclude evidence where it considers that it would be unfair to the accused if it were admitted in the sense that this would or might render his or her trial unfair[73]. Although ordinarily there is a signif…
R v M
[2003] QCA 254 Para 1

…1992, judgment delivered 19 October 1992). For its part the respondent referred the court to the 18 month sentence imposed in the matter of R v Juric [2003] QCA 132 (CA No 431 of 2002, judgment delivered 25 March 2003) imposed on an adult male offender with a lengthy criminal history, for offences of spitting in…

View all 15 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 2 of 2 shown

R v Reuben
[2001] QCA 322 Para 1

…four months, for offences involving spitting on police officers. The only comparable sentence either counsel could refer to since 1997 was R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322. In that case the applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of serious assault, biting a police officer in the execution of his duty, and other summa…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70 Para 1

…established range for offences of the type in question; (ii) the accumulation of the sentences offended the totality principle enunciated in Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 63.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Juric [2003] QCA 132
PARTIES:	R v JURIC, Joseph Mark (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 431 of 2002 DC No 478 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	25 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 March 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal should be granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Sentences imposed at first instance varied only to the extent of setting aside the sentences of two and a half years imprisonment on each of counts two and three and in lieu thereof substituting 18 months imprisonment
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – TOTALITY – where applicant convicted of three charges of serious assault – where assaults included spitting in faces of police officers – where offences committed in breach of suspended sentence – where suspended sentence activated and sentences of two and a half years for the assaults imposed cumulatively – whether sentences for assaults manifestly excessive – whether the accumulation of sentences offended totality principle R v Reuben [2001] QCA 322; CA No 99 of 2001, 7 August 2001, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Moynihan for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent