R v Kent

[2004] QCA 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kent [2004] QCA 83

PARTIES:

R
v
KENT, John Vincent
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 61 of 2004
DC No 31 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

23 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2004

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Philippides 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 dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE -where applicant struck a woman in the face with a glass after he was punched by her - where applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully wounding - where applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after three months - whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Jasser [2004] QCA 14; CA No 277 of 2003, 9 February 2004, cited

R v Orreal [2002] QCA 547; CA No 296 of 2002, 19 December 2002, cited

R v Toohey [2001] QCA 149; CA No 351 of 2000, 19 April 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

P B O'Neil for applicant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connollys (Toowoomba) for applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA:  On 5 March this year the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to 18 months imprisonment suspended after three months, with an operational period of three years, for the offence of unlawful wounding on 7 November 2003.  He had pleaded guilty to this offence on 3 March 2004.  His plea of guilty was after an indication of remorse by the applicant and his co-operation with the police. 

There was some difference between the versions which the learned sentencing judge heard from the prosecuting counsel and from the applicant's counsel as to the circumstances giving rise to the commission of this offence.  As there was no attempt to resolve those differences, it is appropriate to take the version given by the applicant's counsel except to the extent that it may differ from the applicant's recorded interview.

The applicant was a regular visitor to the hotel in which the incident occurred. So, it seems, was the complainant, for he had met her a couple of times in the gaming room of the hotel.  She seemed interested in him and he was, as it was described, chatty to her. 

On the night and at the time in question, he, the applicant, was chatting to another woman and the complainant kept interrupting them telling him that she wanted him to speak to her.  He was polite to her but told her that he did not want to speak to her and that he was speaking to the other person.  Eventually when she kept interrupting him he told her to leave him alone. 

On several occasions after that the complainant…