R v McMartin - [2014] QCA 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McMartin [2014] QCA 279

PARTIES:

R
v
McMARTIN, Trent Alan-John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 143 of 2014
SC No 43 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Morrison JJA and McMeekin 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 be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a plea of guilty of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and, after a trial, of attempted murder – where the applicant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder and to a concurrent term of five years’ imprisonment for GBH – whether the sentencing judge erred by giving insufficient weight to the circumstance that the applicant had served a total of two years’ imprisonment in New South Wales before being extradited to Queensland for the subject offences – whether the 15 years’ sentence is manifestly excessive

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
R v Tevita[2006] QCA 131, cited

COUNSEL:

G McGuire with C J McKinnon for the applicant
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Telford Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: The applicant was convicted after a plea of guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent and, after a trial, of attempted murder. He was sentenced in the Supreme Court in Townsville on 29 May 2014, the fourth day of the trial, to 15 years’ imprisonment for the latter offence and to a concurrent term of five years’ imprisonment for the other offence. One thousand one hundred and seventy-two days spent in pre-sentence custody were declared time already served under the sentences. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the 15 years’ sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. The applicant’s primary contention was that the sentencing judge erred by giving insufficient weight to the circumstance that the applicant had served a total of two years’ imprisonment in New South Wales before being extradited to Queensland for the subject offences.

The applicant’s antecedents

The applicant was 24 at the time of his offending. His lengthy criminal history in New South Wales commencing in 2001 and concluding in March 2009 included armed robbery, stalking, use of violence to cause fear, assault occasioning bodily harm, harassment and intimidation and use of a weapon to prevent detention. The last of these offences was committed by the applicant in resisting arrest in New South Wales in an attempt to avoid extradition to Queensland to face trial for the subject offences. He served two years’ imprisonment in New South…

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 McMartin

Details

AGLC: R v McMartin [2014] QCA 279
Case: [2014] QCA 279
Decision Date: 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, McMartin, appealed against his sentence in the Court of Appeal. He had been convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent and attempted murder. The Court of Appeal was tasked with assessing whether the sentencing judge had erred in various respects, particularly by not giving adequate weight to the time McMartin had already served in New South Wales prior to being extradited to Queensland for these offences. The Court needed to determine whether the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for attempted murder, and a concurrent term of five years for grievous bodily harm, was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the time McMartin had already served in custody. The Court noted that while the time already served was a relevant factor, it was not the sole determinant of whether the sentence was excessive. The Court also considered the severity of the offences, McMartin's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced these factors and had not erred in the sentence imposed.

In light of the Court's reasoning, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The Court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the time already served by McMartin. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the sentencing judge had exercised proper discretion and that there was no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence be 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 McMartin [2014] QCA 279
PARTIES:	R v McMARTIN, Trent Alan-John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 143 of 2014 SC No 43 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2014
JUDGES:	Muir and Morrison JJA and McMeekin 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 be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a plea of guilty of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and, after a trial, of attempted murder – where the applicant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder and to a concurrent term of five years’ imprisonment for GBH – whether the sentencing judge erred by giving insufficient weight to the circumstance that the applicant had served a total of two years’ imprisonment in New South Wales before being extradited to Queensland for the subject offences – whether the 15 years’ sentence is manifestly excessive Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Tevita[2006] QCA 131, cited
COUNSEL:	G McGuire with C J McKinnon for the applicant M R Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anderson Telford Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent