R v Mason - [1997] QCA 67

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 067

McPHERSON JA
AMBROSE J

WHITE J

CA No 360 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

ALLAN BOYD MASON

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 19/03/97
190397 D.1 T23/SJW M/T COA44/97
WHITE J: The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty
on 12 July 1996 of one count of unlawful assault occasioning
bodily harm; one count of rape; one count of disablement to
commit an indictable offence; and one count of robbery. The
offences occurred on the evening of the 1st and 2 December 1995.

The applicant was sentenced on 25 July 1996. His Honour imposed sentences of four years imprisonment for the unlawful assault; 14 years imprisonment for the rape; 10 years imprisonment for the offence of disablement to commit an indictable offence; and eight years imprisonment for the count of robbery. All were to be served concurrently and time spent in pre-sentence custody was declared to be time served under the sentences.

His Honour also sentenced the applicant for breach of an intensive correction order which he had imposed on the applicant in September 1995 for a term of 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the offences that he was dealing with that day.

The applicant is 35 years old and has a relevant criminal history particularly the offences giving rise to the intensive correction order which occurred on 1 April 1995 and which involved threats, assaults and a siege in respect of his de facto wife and their three young children. There are two other offences in his criminal history involving violence which are recorded in 1990 and earlier in 1995.

Although the applicant who appears before the Court on his own behalf does not quarrel with the head sentence, and indeed, 190397 D.1 T23/SJW M/T COA44/97

expresses the opinion that his conduct was bad, in order to deal with the submission that he ought to have been given a recommendation for release on parole earlier than the statutory scheme, it is necessary to say something about the circumstances of these offences.

The complainant was a woman of 32 at the time of the offences, she had met the applicant some years previously through a mutual friend. The complainant was a lesbian by sexual preference and this was apparently known to the applicant. She had not been in a sexual relationship with a male for at least 15 years prior to the offences.

On the evening of 1 December 1995, the complainant was at home by herself and fell asleep watching television. At about midnight, she was awoken by the applicant knocking on the front door. He said he had come to apologise to her and that he had got out of gaol some five weeks earlier. She said that, at the time when the applicant went to gaol, she had not been on very good terms with him. He came into the house and they went into the lounge room and watched television for a while and talked. The complainant said…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [1997] QCA 67
Case: [1997] QCA 67
Decision Date: 19/03/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mason, the applicant, Allan Boyd Mason, appealed against his sentence for multiple offences, including unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm, rape, disablement to commit an indictable offence, and robbery. The offences took place on 1 and 2 December 1995, and the applicant was sentenced on 25 July 1996. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that he should have received a recommendation for parole release earlier than the statutory scheme. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and if there were any procedural errors in the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge erred in not making a recommendation for parole release. The Court also considered if there was any procedural error in the sentencing process, such as the failure to give the applicant the opportunity to read the victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed, taking into account the applicant's history of violence and the severe impact on the victim. The Court noted that the trial judge had given significant weight to the applicant's guilty plea and that the sentence imposed was likely reduced due to this factor. The Court of Appeal found no basis for criticism of the trial judge's decision not to make a recommendation for parole release, as it seemed that the judge had taken the plea of guilty into account. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the failure to give the applicant the opportunity to read the victim impact statement, as the applicant's counsel had read it and the salient features were mentioned during sentencing.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, affirming the trial judge's decision. The Court found that the sentence was appropriate and that there were no procedural errors in the sentencing process.

Orders