R v Ma'afu - [2016] QCA 67

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ma’afu [2016] QCA 67

PARTIES:

R
v
MA’AFU, John Demosthenes
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 198 of 2015
DC No 1702 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 August 2015

DELIVERED ON:

22 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2016

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Bond J
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 AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant committed a string of offences involving escalating levels of violence – where, as a result, the applicant was sentenced upon his own plea of guilty to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years for one count of grievous bodily harm with intent, 12 months for one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one week for one count of common assault – where the sentencing judge set a parole eligibility date of three years after the sentence date – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to comparable authorities, the applicant’s lack of relevant criminal history and that the applicant was a good citizen and father – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances

R v Pham (2015) 90 ALJR 13; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Piper[2015] QCA 129, considered
R v Singh[2006] QCA 71, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Bond J’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal against sentence.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Bond J and with the reasons given by his Honour.
BOND J: At a New Year’s Eve party in 2013 the applicant drank far more alcohol than he was used to drinking. He then proceeded to commit a string of offences involving escalating levels of violence.
At some stage during the party, after a minor verbal altercation, the applicant slapped a 14 year old child.
The applicant eventually caught a cab home at about 4.00 am. When he was asked to pay the $19.90 fare he became agitated, walked inside and returned with his wife. He got back in the cab, saying that he must have left his wallet at the party and needed to go back. After the cab driver said it would be another $20 each way, he punched the cab driver in the face. His wife stopped him from punching the cab driver a second time.
Then, after the cab driver had driven off, the applicant retrieved…

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 Ma'afu

Details

AGLC: R v Ma'afu [2016] QCA 67
Case: [2016] QCA 67
Decision Date: 22 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ma'afu was heard in the court of appeal, where the applicant contested the sentence imposed following a guilty plea to multiple charges of violence. The applicant was sentenced to seven years for grievous bodily harm with intent, 12 months for assault occasioning bodily harm, and one week for common assault, all of which were to run concurrently. The sentencing judge set the parole eligibility date at three years after the sentence date. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as the judge failed to adequately consider relevant case law, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and his role as a good citizen and father.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if the sentencing judge erred in not giving sufficient weight to the factors mentioned by the applicant. The court was required to examine whether the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed, considering all relevant factors. The applicant's argument hinged on the assertion that the sentence was disproportionate in light of the mitigating factors presented.

In assessing the applicant's arguments, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the escalating nature of the offences and the severity of the harm caused, which justified a substantial sentence. The court also noted that the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's background and character, and that the parole eligibility date was set in a manner that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

CITATION:	R v Ma’afu [2016] QCA 67
PARTIES:	R v MA’AFU, John Demosthenes (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 198 of 2015 DC No 1702 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 August 2015
DELIVERED ON:	22 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2016
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and Bond J 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 AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant committed a string of offences involving escalating levels of violence – where, as a result, the applicant was sentenced upon his own plea of guilty to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years for one count of grievous bodily harm with intent, 12 months for one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one week for one count of common assault – where the sentencing judge set a parole eligibility date of three years after the sentence date – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to comparable authorities, the applicant’s lack of relevant criminal history and that the applicant was a good citizen and father – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances R v Pham (2015) 90 ALJR 13; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v Piper[2015] QCA 129, considered R v Singh[2006] QCA 71, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent