R v MCW

Case [2018] QCA 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MCW [2018] QCA 241

PARTIES:

R
v
MCW
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 274 of 2017
DC No 2100 of 2017
DC No 2292 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 October 2017 (Jones DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

28 September 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 April 2018

JUDGES:

Philippides JA and Mullins and Boddice JJ

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting and one summary charge of contravention of domestic violence order – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of two years and six months in respect of each of the assault occasioning bodily harm counts, three years and six months for the choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting count and three months for the summary charge – where the sentencing judge did not forewarn the parties of his intention to reduce the head sentence slightly to reflect the guilty plea and not give the applicant an opportunity for a parole date at earlier than half the sentence – whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to three years and six months for the choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting count – where the applicant persistently inflicted domestic violence against the complainant – where the applicant contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184
Criminal Code (Qld), s 315A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 15

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, followed
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, considered
R v Goodwin;Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2014) 247 A Crim R 582; [2014] QCA 345, cited
R v King[2006] QCA 466, considered
R v Kitson[2008] QCA 86, distinguished
R v RAP (2014) 244 A Crim R 477; [2014] QCA 228, considered
R v Robertson[2017] QCA 164, considered
R v West[2006] QCA 252, considered

COUNSEL:

A Loode for the applicant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. PHILIPPIDES JA:  I  agree that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Mullins J whose judgment I have had the significant benefit of reading.

  2. I agree also with…

Continue reading R v MCW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MCW [2018] QCA 241
Case
[2018] QCA 241
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter under consideration was an appeal against sentence by the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to various charges, including assault occasioning bodily harm, choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting, and contravention of a domestic violence order. The applicant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, with the longest being three years and six months for the choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting count. The applicant contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge did not afford procedural fairness by not forewarning the parties of his intention to reduce the head sentence slightly to reflect the guilty plea and not giving the applicant an opportunity for a parole date at earlier than half the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge did not provide procedural fairness by not forewarning the parties of his intention to reduce the head sentence slightly to reflect the guilty plea and not giving the applicant an opportunity for a parole date at earlier than half the sentence. The applicant also argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not provide procedural fairness by not forewarning the parties of his intention to reduce the head sentence slightly to reflect the guilty plea and not giving the applicant an opportunity for a parole date at earlier than half the sentence. However, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The court found that the applicant had persistently inflicted domestic violence against the complainant and that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the seriousness of the offending.

The court dismissed the application and refused the appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness did not warrant interference with the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.