R v Liang

[2014] QCA 87

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Liang [2014] QCA 87

PARTIES:

R
v
LIANG, Ren Zhi Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 164 of 2013
DC No 970 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Boddice and Thomas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after serving two months, for an operational period of two years – where the applicant contends the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances – where the applicant contends the judge failed to properly take into account all mitigating features and placed undue emphasis on deterrence – where the respondent contends the sentence was in accord with comparable authority – whether leave to appeal sentence should be granted

R v Denyer[2009] QCA 53, distinguished
R v Kemble[2003] QCA 190, cited
R v McLean (2011) 212 A Crim R 199; [2011] QCA 218, distinguished
R v Neivandt[2000] QCA 224, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Boddice J and the order proposed by his Honour.

1. BODDICE J:  The Applicant seeks leave to appeal a sentence of imprisonment imposed in the District Court at Brisbane on 24 June 2013 after the Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company.  The Applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after serving two months, for an operational period of two years.

1. The Applicant contends leave to appeal ought to be granted as the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.  He further contends the sentencing judge failed to properly take into account all matters in mitigation, and placed undue emphasis on the need for a deterrent sentence.

1. The Respondent submits leave to appeal ought to be refused as the sentence was in accord with comparable authority, and the sentencing judge demonstrated a careful balancing exercise of the guiding principles in sentencing offenders.

Background

1. The Applicant was born on 6 August 1972.  He was aged 39 years at the time of the offence, and 40 at the time of sentence.  The Applicant had a prior criminal record in Queensland.  That criminal record included a conviction for grievous bodily harm some 20 years ago.  The Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four and a half years for that…