R v Monro - [2002] QCA 483

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Monro [2002] QCA 483

PARTIES:

R
v
MONRO, Jason Matthew
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 247 of 2002
DC No 844 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

6 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted on own plea of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where applicant contends that, in the circumstances, a sentence requiring the recording of a conviction is manifestly excessive – where applicant studying law – where applicant has favourable antecedents – where serious aspects to offence – where application refused

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld), s 41

COUNSEL:

T D Martin SC, with D R Kent, for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hall Payne for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four months suspended forthwith with an operational period of 18 months.

The imposition of a suspended prison sentence means that a conviction is recorded. The applicant contends that in the circumstances it was manifestly excessive to impose this sentence which necessitated the recording of a conviction and that a fine with no conviction recorded should have been imposed instead.

The facts of the offence were as follows. At the time of the offence the applicant was a member of the Queensland Police Service and working as a police prosecutor in the Magistrates Court. The applicant and the complainant, a 22-year-old woman, were lining up at the bar to purchase drinks from the Transcontinental Hotel in Brisbane on Maundy Thursday 2000.

They did not know each other. The applicant touched the complainant on her shoulders and later her back and the top of her bottom. The complainant pushed the appellant away forcefully requiring him to take two steps backwards and verbally indicated her displeasure.

The applicant threatened to charge her with assault or hit her in self defence and the complainant retaliated with threats of a sexual harassment complaint. About 30 seconds later the applicant lent forward in front of the complainant to get some drinks. The complainant felt him pushing against her. She turned around and again asked him to go away in clear and unambiguous terms, pushing him again. He again took two steps backwards. He again pushed her, this time to the shoulder, causing her to fall onto a female friend. Once more she pushed him…

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 Monro

Details

AGLC: R v Monro [2002] QCA 483
Case: [2002] QCA 483
Decision Date: 6 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Monro was heard in a court where the appellant had been convicted on their own plea of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant contested the severity of the sentence, arguing that, given their personal circumstances, a sentence requiring the recording of a conviction was excessively harsh. The appellant was studying law and had a history of favourable antecedents. However, the court had to consider the serious nature of the offence.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence in light of the appellant's personal circumstances and the gravity of the offence. The court had to balance the appellant's background and current studies against the seriousness of the assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant's argument centred on the contention that a conviction record was manifestly excessive given their personal circumstances, while the prosecution highlighted the need for accountability due to the nature of the offence.

The court carefully considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including their studies and antecedents, as well as the seriousness of the offence. Ultimately, the court found that while the appellant's background was favourable, the nature of the assault necessitated a sentence that included recording a conviction. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, leading to the refusal of the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

The court's decision was final, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The judgment upheld the sentence as appropriate, taking into account both the appellant's circumstances and the seriousness of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Monro [2002] QCA 483
PARTIES:	R v MONRO, Jason Matthew (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 247 of 2002 DC No 844 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	6 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted on own plea of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – where applicant contends that, in the circumstances, a sentence requiring the recording of a conviction is manifestly excessive – where applicant studying law – where applicant has favourable antecedents – where serious aspects to offence – where application refused Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12 Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld), s 41
COUNSEL:	T D Martin SC, with D R Kent, for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hall Payne for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent