R v Ketchup - [2001] QCA 508

[2001] QCA 508

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA

CA No 240 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ALGAN SAMUEL KETCHUP

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/11/2001

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to and was sentenced on 30 August 2001 with respect to one count of unlawful wounding and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. Consequent upon the commission of those offences he also pleaded guilty to breach of a Domestic Violence Order and to being drunk in a public place; those two summary matters can be ignored for present purposes.

Count 1 on the indictment was that of unlawful wounding and the circumstances of that offence were as follows. Both the applicant and the complainant, his de facto, had been drinking heavily on 28 December 2000 in a house at Palm Island. Other persons were present for some time. Then the complainant and the applicant began to walk home.

The next thing the complainant remembers is being hit on the head from behind, the blow knocking her to the ground. She was then hit again. It appears that she was in fact struck with a 40 ounce rum bottle. The second blow was delivered with sufficient force to break the bottle and that caused numerous lacerations to the face of the complainant.

In her victim impact statement she says that she received 38 sutures. There are photographs in evidence which show the significant lacerations to the forehead and other areas of her face. The likelihood is that there will be some residual scarring.

The next offence, that of assault occasioning bodily harm, occurred on 29 March 2001. On this occasion the complainant and the applicant were at a house in Townsville and again were drinking heavily. Other people were present including a young baby. The applicant became upset with the complainant and elbowed her in the mouth knocking her to the ground. Another woman then went to call the police however the applicant pulled the phone cord out of the wall and hit the complainant about the face with it. He punched her on a number of occasions. He also grabbed a bread and butter knife from his pocket and put it to the complainant's throat. The complainant said that her head was pushed down into the mattress causing her some breathing difficulty.

The complainant freed herself from the applicant but the assault continued. He apparently kicked her in the ribs some four or five times and also hit her with a wooden table leg in the region of the left knee.

The third offence occurred on 12 April 2001. Again the parties had been drinking heavily at a hotel in Townsville. They went to a phone booth to call a taxi. Whilst at the phone booth the applicant used the handset of the phone to hit the complainant several times about the body. The taxi arrived and transported them to another hotel in Townsville. At that hotel the applicant grabbed the complainant, threw her money away…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ketchup and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QCA 508
Decision Date: 15/11/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ketchup involved the applicant, Algan Samuel Ketchup, who was sentenced to six years imprisonment for three counts of unlawful wounding and assault occasioning bodily harm against his de facto partners. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The applicant had a history of domestic violence, with multiple breaches of Domestic Violence Orders and prior convictions for similar offences. Despite this, the Court found the six-year sentence to be manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence at the top end of the range for such offences. The Court considered comparable cases and noted that sentences for similar offences typically ranged between three to four years. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of six years was not supported by the precedents and was therefore excessive.

The Court of Appeal, led by Justice Williams, found that while the applicant's history of domestic violence justified a severe sentence, the six-year term was disproportionate. The Court substituted the sentence with four years imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently. This reduced sentence still reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect victims of domestic violence, particularly in indigenous communities. The President and Justice Davies concurred with the decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting women and acknowledging the prevalence of domestic violence in such communities.

Orders