R v King

[2006] QCA 466

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v King [2006] QCA 466

PARTIES:

R
v
KING, Damian Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 231 of 2006
DC No 589 of 2005
DC No 451 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Fryberg 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 is refused

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 - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES - applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of wilful damage and three counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle - for assaults occasioning bodily harm, sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after nine months for an operational period of three years - for other offences, sentenced to concurrent six month terms - disqualified from driving for period of three years - whether sentence for assaults occasioning bodily harm is manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B

R v  Johnson [2002] QCA 283; CA No 143 of 2002, 5 August 2002, considered
R v Pierpoint [2001] QCA 493; CA No 211 of 2001, 13 November 2001, considered
R v Von Pein [2002] QCA 385; CA No 145 of 2002, 25 September 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

M C Chowdhury for the applicant
D R MacKenzie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. :  McMURDO PLike Keane JA I too would refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence for the reasons he gives.

1. The applicant was aged 25 and 26 at the time of the offences and 28 at sentence.  He had a concerning prior criminal history for offences of dishonesty, drugs and violence.  He had not taken up the many opportunities to rehabilitate offered to him in the past by numerous lenient community-based orders including community service.  His offending subsequent to the present assaults did not suggest he had promising future rehabilitative prospects.  The assaults on the applicant's 18 and 19 year old partner and mother of his children were serious examples of domestic violence and warranted salutary penalties for reasons of general and personal deterrence.

1. He did however plead guilty and by the time of sentence seemed to be making commendable efforts to be a responsible father to his three young children and to support rather than terrorize the complainant with whom the children were by then again living.  Psychologist Suzanne Drake considered that he was not at a high risk of committing like offences.  She noted that he actively needed to seek treatment for his underlying psychological conditions…