R v MP

[2004] QCA 170

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MP [2004] QCA 170

PARTIES:

R
v
MP
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 42 of 2004
SC No 312 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ
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 dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for manslaughter –  whether the term of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial judge was manifestly excessive

Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, considered
R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered
R v Stafford CA No 503 of 1995, considered
R v Arnoutovic [2001] QCA 89, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CHESTERMAN J:  The applicant was indicted on a charge of murdering his father, but after a three day trial on 6 February 2004 he was convicted of manslaughter.  The trial Judge concluded that the jury acquitted the applicant of murder on the basis that it was not satisfied that the Crown excluded the defence of provocation beyond reasonable doubt.  His Honour described any provocation as minimal.

The facts of the matter as described by the trial Judge were that at the relevant time the applicant was very drunk.  He became involved in a dispute with his father who, at the time, was sober.  No doubt because of the applicant's intoxication the dispute which began about pets turned to the applicant's children and an accusation made by the applicant to his father that the latter had molested his young daughter.  According to the trial Judge the father remained silent in the face of the allegation which prompted the applicant to bring his four year old child into the room to interrogate her, then to interpret her responses as confirming sexual molestation by his father and, in the face of his continuing silence, to pick up a knife and stab him in the heart. 

The Judge described the attack as ferocious and explicable only on the basis of intoxication.  His Honour had no doubt that the applicant intended to cause his father at least grievous bodily harm.  On this basis his Honour thought that the jury must have acquitted the applicant of murder because they had a reasonable doubt that the attack was provoked by the father's implicit acceptance of the accusation that he had molested one of his grandchildren.

The applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a declaration that 79 days of presentence…