SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Noone [2021] QCA 23
PARTIES:
R
v
NOONE, Darren John
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 186 of 2020
DC No 709 of 2019DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 3 September 2020 (Morzone QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:
19 February 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 February 2021
JUDGES:
Morrison and Mullins JJA and Lyons SJA
ORDER:
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of one count of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with a parole release date after serving six months and ordered to pay $5,000 in compensation within two years – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the basis of being manifestly excessive – where the complainant sustained long-term eye injuries, anxiety and other distress, and ceased employment due to the offending – where the applicant argues that he has extreme difficulty paying the restitution given he has been in custody and unemployed – where the applicant wishes to be released early due to his family experiencing difficulties – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
R v Brand[2006] QCA 525, considered
R v Stringer [2014] QCA 342, consideredCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Nardone for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Lyons SJA and agree with those reasons and the order her Honour proposes.
MULLINS JA: I agree with Lyons SJA.
LYONS SJA:
This application
On 3 September 2020 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Cairns District Court to one count of grievous bodily harm which had been committed on 16 November 2018. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 3 March 2021 after serving six months. He was also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $5,000 within two years to the Registrar at Cairns.
The applicant, who appears on his own behalf, now seeks leave to appeal that sentence on the basis that the compensation order when combined with the two-year head sentence requiring actual custody of six months makes the sentence manifestly excessive.
Circumstances of the offence
At the time of the offence the complainant was 50 years old and living in a unit in Cairns with her partner. On the evening of the offence the complainant, her partner and a guest were eating and drinking at their unit. That guest then invited the applicant to attend the unit. The complainant left as she did not wish the applicant to attend. When the applicant arrived he drank rum with the complainant’s partner and the guest.
An argument subsequently erupted that evening…
Continue reading R v Noone
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Noone [2021] QCA 23
- Case
- [2021] QCA 23
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether there were any other grounds for interference. The court was required to assess the severity of the injury, the impact on the complainant, and the financial circumstances of the applicant, including the ability to pay the compensation order and the reasons for seeking early release from prison. Additionally, the court had to consider the broader context of the applicant’s personal circumstances and their relevance to the sentence.
In determining the application, the court considered the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate sentence for grievous bodily harm. It took into account the long-term injuries and distress suffered by the complainant, as well as the applicant's financial situation and ability to pay the compensation order. The court also examined the reasons for the applicant’s desire for early release, considering the impact on his family. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not meet the threshold for appeal. The court found that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and that the applicant's personal circumstances did not warrant a reduction in the sentence.
The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. Consequently, the applicant remains subject to the original sentence of two years' imprisonment, with a parole release date after serving six months, and the order to pay $5,000 in compensation within two years.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.