R v Kowalczyk

Case [2021] QCA 154


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kowalczyk [2021] QCA 154

PARTIES:

R
v
KOWALCZYK, Paul Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2020
DC No 1885 of 2020
DC No 2093 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 October 2020 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 July 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Applegarth J

ORDERS:

1.   Grant leave to appeal.

2.   Allow the appeal.

3.   Set aside the order for imprisonment imposed on 19 October 2020 for the charge upon the indictment.

4.   Order that a conviction be recorded on that charge but that the applicant not be further punished.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife and breaching a domestic violence Protection Order – where the applicant’s spousal visa was cancelled – where the applicant had spent 298 days in custody on remand – where the applicant was released on bail and then subsequently put into immigration detention – where the sentencing judge declared 300 days as time served in custody – where the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to 300 days imprisonment – whether the sentencing judge was required to set a parole eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife and breaching a domestic violence protection order – where the assault involved the applicant grabbing his wife by the neck and covering her mouth – whether the sentencing judge erred in recording a conviction

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12, s 12A, s 159A, s 160B, s 160C, s 160D, s 160G

COUNSEL:

C R Smith for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P:  I agree with the reasons of McMurdo JA and with the orders proposed.

  2. McMURDO JA:  The applicant was convicted, on his pleas of guilty, of two offences which were committed in the same incident against his wife.  There was an offence of assaulting her (which was a domestic violence offence[1]) and an offence of contravening a domestic violence order.  The incident occurred on 17 October 2019 and on the following day, he was arrested and charged.  He was on remand from then until 10 August 2020, when he was released on bail after spending 298 days in prison.  From then, he was held in immigration detention.

    [1]As defined in the Criminal Code, s 1.

  3. He was sentenced on 19 October 2020.  For the assault offences, he was ordered to serve a term of imprisonment of 300 days, and, at…

Continue reading R v Kowalczyk

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Kowalczyk [2021] QCA 154
Case
[2021] QCA 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Kowalczyk, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge in the County Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to charges of assaulting his wife and breaching a domestic violence Protection Order. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the sentencing judge was required to set a parole eligibility date. The sentencing judge had declared 300 days as time served in custody and sentenced the applicant to 300 days imprisonment.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the nature of the offence and the applicant’s personal circumstances. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge was required to set a parole eligibility date. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in recording a conviction for the assault charge, as the evidence supported the applicant's guilt. However, the court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as the applicant had already spent 298 days in custody on remand and had been released on bail before being put into immigration detention. The court also found that the sentencing judge was required to set a parole eligibility date.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court set aside the order for imprisonment imposed on 19 October 2020 for the charge upon the indictment and ordered that a conviction be recorded on that charge but that the applicant not be further punished. The court's decision was based on the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the circumstances of the offender, and that the sentencing judge was required to set a parole eligibility date. The court's decision ensures that the applicant is not subjected to an excessive sentence and that justice is served.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the order for imprisonment imposed on 19 October 2020 for the charge upon the indictment.

4. Order that a conviction be recorded on that charge but that the applicant not be further punished.

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.