R v MCL - [2017] QCA 114

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MCL [2017] QCA 114

PARTIES:

R
v
MCL
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 148 of 2016
DC No 431 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 3 May 2016

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Refuse the application for leave to appeal.

2. Refuse the application to adduce further evidence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence that she assaulted two police officers while they were acting in the execution of their duty – where the applicant bit one police offer’s thumb, resulting in a superficial laceration – where that police officer required medical treatment – where convictions were recorded – where those convictions affected the applicant’s ability to work in her profession – where the applicant argued that it would have been open to the sentencing judge to exercise the discretion not to record a conviction – whether the conviction is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances – whether it was open to the sentencing judge to exercise the discretion not to record a conviction

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(9A), s 152

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, considered
R v Bowley[2016] QCA 254, cited
R v Gofton, unreported, Durward DCJ, DC No 463 of 2015, 2 August 2016, distinguished
R v Hughes [2004] 1 Qd R 541; [2003] QCA 460, cited
R v King (2008) 179 A Crim R 600; [2008] QCA 1, applied
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
R v Reuben[2001] QCA 322, applied
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to offences committed on 20 February 2015 that she assaulted Constable Seeto, a police officer, while he was acting in the execution of his duty (count 1), and she assaulted Constable McLeod, a police officer, while she was acting in the execution of her duty (count 2). Convictions were recorded. Upon the second count the applicant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment fully suspended forthwith for an operational period of 18 months. Upon the first count the sentencing judge ordered probation for a period of 18 months, with additional requirements that the applicant submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment and abstain from the consumption of alcohol.

The applicant has applied for leave to…

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 MCL

Details

AGLC: R v MCL [2017] QCA 114
Case: [2017] QCA 114
Decision Date: 2 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MCL involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge in the Magistrates’ Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers while they were executing their duties. The assault resulted in one officer sustaining a superficial laceration on his thumb from a bite, necessitating medical treatment. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the impact on her professional prospects as a result of the convictions recorded. Specifically, she argued that it would have been open to the sentencing judge to exercise discretion in not recording a conviction, given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conviction was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, and whether it was open to the sentencing judge to exercise discretion in not recording a conviction. The court was tasked with evaluating the principles of sentencing discretion and the impact of recorded convictions on an individual's life, particularly in professional contexts. The applicant's argument hinged on the potential for a more lenient approach that would have better aligned with the proportionality principle in sentencing.

The court determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court held that the recorded convictions were not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence and its impact on the officers. The court further found that it was not open to the sentencing judge to exercise discretion in not recording a conviction, as the severity of the assault warranted such a record to uphold the integrity of the law and to deter similar conduct. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence.

The orders of the court were to refuse the application for leave to appeal and to refuse the application to adduce further evidence. The court upheld the sentence and the recording of the convictions, maintaining that the discretion exercised by the sentencing judge was appropriate and justified in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Refuse the application for leave to appeal.

2. Refuse the application to adduce further evidence.

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 MCL [2017] QCA 114
PARTIES:	R v MCL (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 148 of 2016 DC No 431 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 3 May 2016
DELIVERED ON:	2 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 November 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Refuse the application for leave to appeal. 2. Refuse the application to adduce further evidence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence that she assaulted two police officers while they were acting in the execution of their duty – where the applicant bit one police offer’s thumb, resulting in a superficial laceration – where that police officer required medical treatment – where convictions were recorded – where those convictions affected the applicant’s ability to work in her profession – where the applicant argued that it would have been open to the sentencing judge to exercise the discretion not to record a conviction – whether the conviction is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances – whether it was open to the sentencing judge to exercise the discretion not to record a conviction Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(9A), s 152 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, considered R v Bowley[2016] QCA 254, cited R v Gofton, unreported, Durward DCJ, DC No 463 of 2015, 2 August 2016, distinguished R v Hughes [2004] 1 Qd R 541; [2003] QCA 460, cited R v King (2008) 179 A Crim R 600; [2008] QCA 1, applied R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited R v Reuben[2001] QCA 322, applied Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf D R Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent