R v Lawler

Case [2020] QCA 166

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lawler [2020] QCA 166

PARTIES:

R
v
LAWLER, Darren James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 6 of 2020
SC No 635 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 December 2019 (Davis J)

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2020

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Morrison JA and Wilson J

ORDER:

Leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was arraigned on the charge of murder – where the applicant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter – where the prosecution accepted the defendant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis that it could not negative a defence under section 304 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the sentence proceeded on the basis that the applicant had inflicted the fatal wounds in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation and before there was time for his passion to cool – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a declaration pursuant to section 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the grounds that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and the sentencing judge erred by imposing a serious violence offence declaration – where the applicant submits that a sentence of nine years with parole eligibility after one half of the term would properly reflect the overall criminality of the offence – whether the imposition of a serious violence offence declaration was necessary or appropriate – whether the sentence imposed was beyond the permissible range

Criminal Code (Qld), s 304
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B(3)

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Carlisle[2017] QCA 258, cited
R v Civic[2014] QCA 322, cited
R v DeSalvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, cited
R v Doyle (unreported, Supreme Court, Lyons J, 5 June 2014), cited
R v Free; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2020] QCA 58, cited
R v Hedlefs[2017] QCA 199, cited
R v Jackson[2011] QCA 103, cited
R v Liddy; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2018] QCA 254, cited
R v Mills[2008] QCA 146, cited
R v MP[2004] QCA 170, cited
R v Murray[2012] QCA 68, cited
R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, cited
R v Schubring; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2005] 1 Qd R 515; [2004] QCA 418, cited
R v Sebo; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2007) 179 A Crim R 24; [2007] QCA 426

Continue reading R v Lawler

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lawler [2020] QCA 166
Case
[2020] QCA 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lawler, the applicant was initially charged with murder but later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The prosecution accepted this plea due to an inability to disprove a defence under section 304 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The sentencing judge proceeded under the assumption that the applicant had acted in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation before his passion could cool. The applicant was subsequently sentenced to eight years imprisonment, with a declaration under section 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that the offence was a serious violence offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the imposition of a serious violence offence declaration was inappropriate.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was beyond the permissible range and whether the declaration of a serious violence offence was necessary or appropriate. The applicant contended that a sentence of nine years with parole eligibility after one half of the term would more accurately reflect the criminality of the offence. The court had to weigh these arguments against the principles of sentencing and the guidelines provided by previous judicial decisions.

The court carefully considered the sentencing principles and the applicable legal framework, ultimately determining that the sentence imposed was within the permissible range. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence and the declaration. The applicant's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate that the sentence was manifestly excessive or that the declaration was inappropriate. Consequently, the court denied the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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.