R v Oakes

Case [2012] QCA 336

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Oakes [2012] QCA 336

PARTIES:

R
v
OAKES, Rowan Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2012
SC No 184 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes, White and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant convicted after a four day trial of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm with intent – where applicant sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration – where applicant was armed with two steak knives – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B(3), s 161B(3)(b)

R v BCF [2012] QCA 87, cited
R v Beer [2000] QCA 193, distinguished
R v Dempsey [2001] QCA 141, distinguished
R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, cited
R v Mallie, ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 109, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87, [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, cited
R v Murray [2010] QCA 266, cited
R v Nguyen [2006] QCA 542, cited

COUNSEL:

P E Smith with K M Hillard for the applicant
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and the order he proposes.

  1. WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA.  I agree with his Honour’s reasons and the order which he proposes.

  1. GOTTERSON JA:  On 8 March 2012, at the conclusion of a trial before a judge and jury, the applicant, Rowan Paul Oakes, was found guilty and convicted on one count of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant, KAB, with intent to do so.  The jury found him not guilty on a count of unlawfully attempting to kill the complainant.  He had been charged in the alternative on the count on which he was convicted.  Both counts were based on events which occurred on 6 May 2009 at Brisbane.

  1. The applicant was sentenced on 9 March 2012 to a term of imprisonment for seven years.  A declaration that the applicant offender was convicted of a serious violent offence was made as part of the sentence.[1]  In consequence of that declaration, the applicant’s parole eligibility date will not occur until he has served 80 per cent of the term if imprisonment.[2]  Fifty-Five days of pre-sentence custody were declared as time served under the sentence.

    [1]Pursuant to Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B(3).

Continue reading R v Oakes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Oakes [2012] QCA 336
Case
[2012] QCA 336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Oakes, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria following his conviction for unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The severity of the sentence, a seven-year imprisonment term accompanied by a serious violent offence declaration, was the primary focus of the appeal. The trial had determined that Mr Oakes had inflicted significant harm on the victim while armed with two steak knives during the incident. The appeal contested whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues at the core of this appeal revolved around whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate to the crime that it warranted appellate intervention. The Court needed to assess if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate under the relevant statutory provisions. The applicant argued that the length of the sentence did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in his case, while the prosecution contended that the severity of the crime justified the sentence. The Court was tasked with balancing the statutory criteria for sentencing against the specific facts and circumstances of this case to determine if the sentence warranted alteration.

In examining the matter, the Court considered the principles of sentencing proportionality and the discretion afforded to the trial judge. The Court noted the severity of the crime, the use of weapons, and the extent of harm caused. It also considered the applicant's background and mitigating factors presented during sentencing. Ultimately, the Court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crime committed and did not constitute a manifestly excessive sentence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.