R v JV - [2014] QCA 351

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JV [2014] QCA 351

PARTIES:

R
v
JV
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 246 of 2013
SC No 221 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2014

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded to the manslaughter of his infant twins – where the applicant’s de facto partner, and the mother of the deceased, was the co-accused – where the deceased were 18 months old at the time of death – where the applicant and co-accused failed to engage with the deceased, including feeding them – where the applicant and co-accused were sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment – where the applicant submitted that he was not the primary caregiver and that there was no violence involved – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

BW v The Queen (2011) 218 A Crim R 10; [2011] NSWCCA 176, considered
R v Chard; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 372, considered
R v Cramp, unreported, White J, SC No 611 of 2007, 30 January 2008, considered
R v Green & Haliday; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2003] QCA 259, considered
R v Hall; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2002] QCA 125, considered
R v Pesnak & Anor (2000) 112 A Crim R 410; [2000] QCA 245, considered
R v Potter; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 183 A Crim R 497; [2008] QCA 91, considered
R v Streatfield (1991) 53 A Crim R 320, considered
R v Webb, unreported, Henry J, SC No 20 and 26 of 2013, 27 August 2013, considered

COUNSEL:

R P Devlin QC, with J L Voight, for the applicant (pro bono)
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: On 24 July 2013 in the Supreme Court of Brisbane, the applicant, JV, pleaded guilty to alternative counts of manslaughter, having pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder. Initially neither plea of guilty was accepted by the Crown. The trial proceeded for a number of days. However, after consideration by the Crown of the outcome of ensuing legal argument, the pleas of guilty were accepted in discharge of the indictment on 5 August 2013.

One count to which the applicant pleaded guilty of manslaughter, Count 3, arose out of the death of his infant son, MJZ. The other, Count 4, arose out of the death of MJZ’s twin sister, MJL. Both deaths were alleged to have been caused between 8 and 17 June 2008 at Sunnybank…

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 JV

Details

AGLC: R v JV [2014] QCA 351
Case: [2014] QCA 351
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v JV, the applicant appealed against his sentence for the manslaughter of his infant twins. The case was heard in a higher court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The co-accused, who was also the de facto partner of the applicant and the mother of the deceased, faced a similar appeal. Both the applicant and the co-accused were sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, submitting that he was not the primary caregiver for the deceased and that there was no violence involved in the case.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant contended that he did not have the primary responsibility for the care of the twins and that there was no evidence of violence. The court needed to weigh these submissions against the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant and the co-accused failed to engage with the deceased, including feeding them. The deceased were 18 months old at the time of their death, and their neglect had dire consequences.

The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant and reviewed the circumstances of the case. It concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the gravity of the neglect and the resulting deaths of the twins. The court found that the applicant’s role in the neglect of the deceased was significant, and the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

The court's final orders were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The applicant and the co-accused would serve their respective eight-year sentences for the manslaughter of their infant twins.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v JV [2014] QCA 351
PARTIES:	R v JV (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 246 of 2013 SC No 221 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2014
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded to the manslaughter of his infant twins – where the applicant’s de facto partner, and the mother of the deceased, was the co-accused – where the deceased were 18 months old at the time of death – where the applicant and co-accused failed to engage with the deceased, including feeding them – where the applicant and co-accused were sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment – where the applicant submitted that he was not the primary caregiver and that there was no violence involved – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive BW v The Queen (2011) 218 A Crim R 10; [2011] NSWCCA 176, considered R v Chard; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 372, considered R v Cramp, unreported, White J, SC No 611 of 2007, 30 January 2008, considered R v Green & Haliday; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2003] QCA 259, considered R v Hall; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2002] QCA 125, considered R v Pesnak & Anor (2000) 112 A Crim R 410; [2000] QCA 245, considered R v Potter; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 183 A Crim R 497; [2008] QCA 91, considered R v Streatfield (1991) 53 A Crim R 320, considered R v Webb, unreported, Henry J, SC No 20 and 26 of 2013, 27 August 2013, considered
COUNSEL:	R P Devlin QC, with J L Voight, for the applicant (pro bono) M R Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent