R v MDB

Case [2018] QCA 283

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MDB [2018] QCA 283

PARTIES:

R
v
MDB
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 35 of 2018
DC No 265 of 2018
DC No 254 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 15 February 2018 (McGill SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 October 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2018

JUDGES:

Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Bowskill J

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to domestic violence offences against his partner including common assault, threatening violence, assault occasioning bodily harm, choking in a domestic setting and wilful damage – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge erred by relying upon the existence of an earlier domestic violence order as evidence that the offending was not isolated and exceptional – whether the existence and contravention of a previous domestic violence order is a relevant and aggravating feature – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge’s finding that the applicant had, by his actions, threatened to kill the complainant represents an erroneous interpretation and impression of the agreed facts –where the applicant contends the judge erred by questioning the applicant’s credibility and reliability, as a result of him telling police he did not believe it was illegal to possess a flick knife in a private place, when he had previously been convicted of possessing a knife in a public place – where the sentencing judge questioned the applicant’s reliability, in the context of submissions made about the effects of medication combined with alcohol as causes of his offending, in the absence of supporting evidence – whether the sentencing judge erred in any of these respects

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for choking in a domestic setting under s 315A of the Criminal Code – where the applicant is a mature man, with a serious and relevant criminal history, including for offences of violence – where the offending was protracted and violent, including a threat with a flick knife, threatening to bite the complainant’s face off, and attempting to bite her face and cheeks, squeezing the complainant’s throat, twice, to the point she could not breathe, and wilful damage of substantial value – where general deterrence, personal deterrence and denunciation, as well as community protection, are important factors in sentencing an offender under s 315A – whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 180, s 184
Criminal Code (Qld), s 315A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 9, s 13, s 159A

Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, cited
Hili v…

Continue reading R v MDB

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MDB [2018] QCA 283
Case
[2018] QCA 283
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MDB involved the appellant appealing against his sentence, following a guilty plea to various domestic violence offences against his partner. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred in several respects, including by relying on the existence of an earlier domestic violence order as evidence that the offending was not isolated and exceptional. The appellant also contended that the judge misinterpreted the agreed facts by finding that he had threatened to kill the complainant, and questioned his credibility due to his statement to police about possessing a flick knife. The appellant further argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in considering the existence and contravention of a previous domestic violence order as an aggravating factor, in interpreting the agreed facts, in questioning the appellant's credibility, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and community protection, as well as the relevant factors to consider in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering the existence and contravention of a previous domestic violence order as an aggravating factor, nor in interpreting the agreed facts. The court also held that the judge did not err in questioning the appellant's credibility, as the appellant's statement to police about possessing a flick knife was relevant to his credibility. The court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the appellant's serious and relevant criminal history, the protracted and violent nature of the offending, and the need for general deterrence, personal deterrence, denunciation, and community protection.

The application for appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of four years imprisonment for choking in a domestic setting under section 315A of the Criminal Code was upheld.

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.