R v Moore - [1994] QCA 294

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 294

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 145 of 1994

Brisbane

[R v. Moore]

T H E Q U E E N

ANTHONY MICHAEL MOORE

(Applicant)

Davies JA
McPherson JA
Ambrose J

Judgment delivered 15/08/1994

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - indecent assault - grievous bodily harm - significant consumption of alcohol prior to offences - complainant spat in face of applicant - excessive violent reaction - applicant older and larger than complainant - previous criminal offences - guilty plea.

SENTENCE - 5 years imprisonment - not excessive.

Counsel:	Ms K McGinness for the appellant Mr P Callaghan for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date:1 August, 1994

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered : 15/08/1994
This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on 6 April 1994 on the ground that they were manifestly excessive.
The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of indecent assault and a second count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to a 17 year old girl whom he had met at a party, which they both attended and which continued on into the early hours of the morning.
The applicant and the complainant had apparently engaged in "some limited romantic interludes at the party" before they left together at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. They then proceeded to a garage where apparently they engaged in some sort of sexual activity, one with the other, until after being fondled in a way which did not appeal to her the complainant spat in the face of the applicant. The applicant reacted by hitting the complainant about the face and head and also by punching her in the region of her vagina.
The applicant then returned to the party where he admitted that he "gave the complainant three or four king hits". He explained that he had hit her because she spat in his face in the course of their encounter which had apparently commenced with her consent.

Another guest of the party later came upon the complainant crouching in bushes and totally naked. She appeared then to be severely injured. Upon a medical examination both eyes were closed and grossly bruised. There were fresh bruises covering each of her cheeks. Both lips were swollen and to the right of her mouth was a bruise approximately 7 cm by 2 cm. On the angle of her left jaw there was another bruise 12 cm by 10 cm. Her mouth appeared to be misshapen. She sustained a bilateral fractured mandible. She underwent an operation and her fractures were reduced. She has been left with paraesthesia of the left mental nerve distribution. She will always have permanent numbness to her chin and below her lip on the left hand side of the face.

The complainant was also examined by a gynaecologist. He found no abdominal bruising, but the…

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 Moore

Details

AGLC: R v Moore [1994] QCA 294
Case: [1994] QCA 294
Decision Date: 15/08/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Moore involved the applicant, Anthony Michael Moore, who appealed against the sentence imposed on him following his guilty plea to charges of indecent assault and unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred after the applicant, aged 28, and the 17-year-old complainant, who was significantly smaller and younger, had left a party and engaged in consensual sexual activities in a garage. The complainant spat in the applicant’s face, leading to a violent reaction from the applicant, who punched and hit the complainant, causing severe injuries. The court had to consider whether the sentence of five years imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues centred on the appropriate sentencing range for the offences committed and whether the sentence imposed was justified given the circumstances, including the excessive violence used by the applicant despite the complainant’s provocation. The court also needed to consider the impact of alcohol consumption on the events leading up to the offences and the applicant's history of criminal conduct. Another important consideration was the principle of deterrence and the need to protect the public from similar offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence, while at the upper end of the appropriate range, was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged that the applicant’s reaction to the complainant spitting in his face was disproportionate and brutal, given the applicant's age, size, and criminal history. The severity of the injuries inflicted on the complainant, including a fractured mandible and psychological trauma, supported the sentence imposed. The court concluded that the sentence served the purposes of deterrence and protection of the public, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders