R v Levy & Drobny; Ex parte

Case [2014] QCA 205

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Levy & Drobny; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 205

PARTIES:

In CA No 20 of 2014:

R
v
LEVY, Nathan Edward Tulungi
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

In CA No 21 of 2014:

R
v
DROBNY, Steve Robert
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 20 of 2014
CA No 21 of 2014
DC No 10 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeals by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Hervey Bay

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2014

JUDGES:

In CA No 20 of 2014:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

In CA No 21 of 2014:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Holmes JA and Philip McMurdo J concurring as to the order made, Morrison JA dissenting

ORDERS:

In CA No 20 of 2014:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Set aside the order made on 22 January 2014, that the date the offender be released on parole be fixed at 22 January 2014.

3.   Order in lieu thereof, that the date the offender be released on parole be fixed at the conclusion of four months imprisonment.

4.   Order that a warrant for the arrest of the respondent issue and lie in the registry for a period of one week.

5.   Otherwise affirm the orders made on 22 January 2014.

In CA No 21 of 2014:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where Levy was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months but ordered to be released on parole immediately – where Drobny was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company and sentenced to perform unpaid community service of 150 hours to be performed within 12 months with no conviction recorded – where Drobny and Levy entered the complainant’s taxi – where the complainant became aware that neither Drobny nor Levy had money to pay for the taxi fare – where the complainant indicated he would take them to a police station – where the taxi stopped with Drobny, Levy and the complainant getting out from the taxi – where Drobny tackled the complainant to the ground then took no further part in the assault – where Drobny’s actions caused the complainant to suffer pain and bruising to his thighs – where Levy punched and kicked the complainant causing him to suffer multiple facial fractures – where the complainant underwent surgery during which plates and screws were inserted permanently –where Drobny was 19 years old, had no prior convictions, and good employment…

Continue reading R v Levy & Drobny; Ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Levy and Drobny; Ex parte [2014] QCA 205
Case
[2014] QCA 205
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court heard an appeal against sentence by Levy and Drobny. Levy was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment, with immediate parole, while Drobny was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company and sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid community service, with no conviction recorded. The Crown Attorney argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate given the nature of the crime, which involved an assault on a member of the public performing an essential service. The Attorney-General argued that the sentences did not reflect the seriousness of the offence and sought a conviction for Drobny and actual imprisonment for Levy.

The Court examined the sentencing principles applicable to the case and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The Court found that the sentence for Levy was manifestly inadequate given the severity of the harm caused to the victim, and the need for general deterrence. The Court found that the sentence for Drobny was also inadequate because it did not reflect the seriousness of the crime and failed to adequately address the risk of re-offending. The Court also found that a conviction should have been recorded for Drobny. The Court noted that both offenders were young, had no prior convictions, and had shown remorse for their actions. However, these factors were not sufficient to justify the leniency of the sentences imposed.

The Court set aside the order for Levy’s immediate parole release and ordered that he be released on parole at the conclusion of four months imprisonment. The Court also ordered that a warrant for the arrest of Levy issue and lie in the registry for a period of one week. The Court dismissed the appeal against Drobny’s sentence, finding that the community service order was appropriate given his age, employment prospects, and the fact that he had no prior convictions. The Court noted that Drobny had played a lesser role in the assault and had shown remorse for his actions. Overall, the Court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the crime or adequately address the risk of re-offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 20 of 2014:

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the order made on 22 January 2014, that the date the offender be released on parole be fixed at 22 January 2014.

3. Order in lieu thereof, that the date the offender be released on parole be fixed at the conclusion of four months imprisonment.

4. Order that a warrant for the arrest of the respondent issue and lie in the registry for a period of one week.

5. Otherwise affirm the orders made on 22 January 2014.

In CA No 21 of 2014:

Appeal dismissed.

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.