R v Kingelty & Griffiths - [2000] QCA 198

[2000] QCA 198

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
MUIR J

CA No 390 of 1999

THE QUEEN

JODIE MARIE KINGELTY Applicant

CA No 413 of 1999

THE QUEEN

BRADLEY JAMES GRIFFITHS Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/05/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: These are applications for leave to appeal against sentence. Each of the applicants pleaded guilty to a charge of having unlawfully attempted to kill one Wagner. Griffiths was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and Kingelty to eight years' imprisonment. The learned sentencing Judge added to Kingelty's sentence a declaration of guilt of a serious violent offence, the result being, as his Honour pointed out, that Kingelty would have to serve at least 6.4 years' imprisonment.

The background of the offence was that the complainant and Kingelty had been in a de facto relationship and a child was produced. There were incidents of violence which resulted in Kingelty obtaining a domestic violence order which was twice breached, the second breach having taken place in July 1997. After that time Kingelty continued to express some dissatisfaction with the complainant's conduct, on the ground that he had too little contact with their child. On the day the offence was committed, the complainant, it is said, mocked Kingelty on the telephone.

It seems clear that the attempt at killing was the result of an arrangement made between the two offenders. A person who had met Kingelty on the afternoon of the day of the attempt, which occurred at night, said that Kingelty told her the complainant was "going down". Kingelty drove Griffiths to the complainant's home that night, the latter being armed with what was described as a cane knife. Kingelty waited outside with the engine running in the vehicle. Griffiths went inside with the knife and swung it at Wagner, missed him a few times, and then connected with his head, producing a fractured skull. Fortunately there was no disability consequent upon that fracture.

The complainant moved away and then decided to try to tackle Griffiths so that he could escape. Griffiths continued to swing his weapon at him. The complainant, being cornered, put up his arm to protect his head and received an injury which cut about two-thirds of the way through the left arm.
The complainant then escaped, chased by Griffiths who was yelling out that he was going to kill him. At that stage there were further attempts to strike the complainant all of which failed except one which caused bruising. The complainant then ran back towards his unit and called out to the people who had been with him to call the police and Griffiths attacked no further.

Griffiths then went to the vehicle and said, "I've got him." and was driven off. A witness heard a female voice call out from the direction of the vehicle, "I'm going to kill you." Both Griffiths and Kingelty, it appears, had liquor taken but it was not contended, below or here, that this was a mitigating factor.

When the…

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 Kingelty & Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Kingelty and Griffiths [2000] QCA 198
Case: [2000] QCA 198
Decision Date: 26/05/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved applications for leave to appeal against sentence by Jodie Marie Kingelty and Bradley James Griffiths. Both applicants had pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to unlawfully kill one Wagner. Griffiths was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and Kingelty to eight years' imprisonment. The appeal centred on whether the sentences imposed were excessive considering the applicants' pleas of guilty and their lack of significant criminal history.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentences imposed on Kingelty and Griffiths were manifestly excessive. The applicants argued that the sentences should have been reduced due to their guilty pleas and the absence of any significant prior criminal history. The Court needed to determine if the sentences fell within the range of appropriate penalties for the crime committed.

The Court found that both sentences were within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence. Pincus JA noted that while Kingelty was not directly involved in the violence, she intended for the violent act to occur. Davies JA highlighted that Kingelty encouraged Griffiths during the attack. Muir JA agreed with Pincus JA and Davies JA, concluding that the sentences were justified given the nature of the offence and the applicants' roles in it. The Court ultimately dismissed both applications for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders