R v Newman

Case [2007] QCA 198


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Newman [2007] QCA 198

PARTIES:

R
v
NEWMAN, Brenton James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 63 of 2007
DC No 6232 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Williams JA and White J concurring as to the order made, Jerrard JA dissenting

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to charges of rape, grievous bodily harm, robbery with violence, burglary and deprivation of liberty – where offences were committed in the victim's home – where victim was an elderly lady and suffered serious physical and psychological harm as a result of the attack – where offender showed little remorse – where degree of callousness was significant – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995] QCA 80, cited
R v Basic (2000) 115 A Crim R 456; [2000] QCA 155, considered
R v Bolton
[2005] QCA 335; CA No 119 of 2005, 9 September 2005, considered
R v Henry [2002] QCA 520; CA No 272 of 2002, 27 November 2002, considered
R v Jerome
[1997] QCA 299; CA No 230 of 1997, 18 July 1997, distinguished
R v Mallie[2000] QCA 188; CA 49 of 2000, 17 May 2000, considered
R v Price [2004] QCA 10; CA No 352 of 2003, 6 February 2004, considered
R v Shillingsworth & Cosh [1985] CCA 027; [1985] 1 Qd R 537, considered

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to charges of rape, grievous bodily harm, robbery with violence, burglary and deprivation of liberty in the District Court at Townsville on 21 February 2007.  Each of the charges related to events which occurred on 13 December 2005.  The applicant was sentenced on 5 March 2007 to 13 years imprisonment on the charge of rape, and lesser concurrent sentences were imposed with respect to the other offences.  A declaration was made that he had spent 447 days in pre-sentence custody.  He seeks leave to appeal against the head sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive particularly in view of his age.  He was born on 7 November 1988 making him just some weeks past his 17th birthday when the offences were committed; he was aged 18 at the time of sentence.

  1. The…

Continue reading R v Newman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Newman [2007] QCA 198
Case
[2007] QCA 198
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Newman, the applicant appealed against his sentence for a series of serious offences. The applicant pleaded guilty to charges of rape, grievous bodily harm, robbery with violence, burglary, and deprivation of liberty. The offences were committed against an elderly lady in her own home, resulting in significant physical and psychological harm. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offences. The applicant argued that the sentence was too severe, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court had to weigh the severity of the crimes, the degree of harm caused to the victim, the applicant's lack of remorse, and the overall callousness of the offender.

In considering the appeal, the court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to the gravity of the crimes and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The seriousness of the offences, the significant harm caused to the victim, and the lack of remorse demonstrated by the applicant supported the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.