R v MAB

Case [2004] QCA 281


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v MAB [2004] QCA 281
PARTIES:  R
v
MAB
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 220 of 2004
DC No 1407 of 2004
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Sentence Application
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX  4 August 2004
TEMPORE ON: 
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  4 August 2004
JUDGES:  Davies JA, McPherson JA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:  Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:  CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER –
applicant convicted on pleas of guilty – where counts of
common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, stealing
and burglary were against applicant’s de facto wife and her
children – whether head sentence of imprisonment for two
years suspended after six months with operational period of
three years excessive where no prior convictions.
R v Wentt [1995] QCA 613; CA No 440 of 1995, 6 December
1995, considered
COUNSEL:  S A Lynch for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  A W Bale & Son for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent.

1

HELMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on the applicant on 15 June 2004 in the District Court at Brisbane. He was charged on seven counts and pleaded guilty to each.

In counts 1 and 2 common assaults at Drewvale, Queensland were
alleged – in each case on a date unknown between 30 September
1999 and 1 December 1999. The assault alleged in count 1 was
upon the applicant's then de facto wife, and that in count 2
upon the wife's daughter, issue of a previous relationship.
In the course of an argument between the applicant and his
wife, he called her a prostitute and slapped her face twice.
The wife began to cry and the daughter intervened. The
applicant struck the daughter on the face and again struck the
wife. The applicant desisted after a neighbour intervened.

In count 3 an assault occasioning bodily harm on the wife's son, then aged seven or eight years was alleged. The son, too, was issue of the wife's previous relationship. The incident that gave rise to this charge took place when, after an argument in the applicant's car, the wife and her son fled from it, but the applicant chased them and dragged the boy across rocky ground to the car and threw him onto the back seat. The boy's legs bled from contact with the ground. That offence was alleged to have taken place at Toowoomba or elsewhere in Queensland on a date unknown between 30 September 1999 and 20 January 2000.

2

Count 4 was another allegation of common assault. It was alleged that it took place on or about 19 January 2000 at Brisbane or elsewhere in Queensland. The assault occurred following arguments…

Continue reading R v MAB

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MAB [2004] QCA 281
Case
[2004] QCA 281
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MAB involved an applicant who was convicted on pleas of guilty. The applicant was found guilty of multiple counts related to criminal activities, the specifics of which are not detailed in the summary. The matter was brought before the court for consideration of the sentence handed down, with the applicant seeking leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The court examined various legal issues, focusing on the factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character and antecedents of the offender, the impact of the crime on the victim, and any other relevant circumstances. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive and not commensurate with the nature of the offence and the personal circumstances that could be considered mitigating. The court had to weigh these arguments against the gravity of the offence and the need for the sentence to serve purposes such as deterrence and retribution.

In delivering its decision, the court considered the principles of sentencing as established by relevant case law. The court noted that while the applicant had personal circumstances that could be considered, they did not sufficiently outweigh the seriousness of the crime committed. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and took into account all relevant factors. The applicant's arguments for a reduced sentence did not sufficiently challenge the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.