R v Parker

Case [2011] QCA 198

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Parker [2011] QCA 198

PARTIES:

R
v
PARKER, Geoffrey Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 269 of 2010
DC No 389 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 July 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed

2.   Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING PROCEDURE – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm simpliciter – where the applicant was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving four years –where the sentencing judge found that the applicant inflicted the blows to the complainant voluntarily and not in self-defence – where the sentencing judge sentenced on the basis that the applicant acted impulsively and therefore without intent – whether the factual basis adopted by the sentencing judge was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant contended the sentence imposed was more in line with sentences imposed for grievous bodily harm with intent rather than grievous bodily harm simpliciter – where the applicant contended the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to sentences imposed upon other offenders – whether the sentence of eight and a half years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 23(1)(a), s 668E(3)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C(3)

Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67, applied
Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509; [1936] HCA 42, applied
Griffiths v The Queen (1976-1977) 137 CLR 293; [1977] HCA 44, applied
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995] QCA 80, applied
R v Bonner [1997] QCA 394, considered
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Dietz[2009] QCA 392, considered
R v Honeysett; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2010] QCA 212, considered
R v Hoogsaad[2001] QCA 27, considered
R v Jaramillo[2007] QCA 420, considered
R v King & Morgan; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland[2002] QCA 376, considered
R v Kirkby [2001] QCA 37, considered
R v Perussich[2001] QCA 557
R v Schubring; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] 1 Qd R 515; [2004] QCA 418, considered
R v Thomason; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2011] QCA 9, considered
Skinner v The King (1913) 16 CLR 336 [1913] HCA 32, considered

COUNSEL:

J J Allen for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

Continue reading R v Parker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Parker [2011] QCA 198
Case
[2011] QCA 198
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Parker, was convicted of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant and was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving four years. The sentencing judge determined that the act was voluntary and not in self-defence, and that the applicant acted impulsively without intent. Parker sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the factual basis adopted by the sentencing judge was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to decide whether the sentencing judge's factual basis for the sentence was inconsistent with the jury's verdict, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant contended that the sentence was more in line with sentences imposed for grievous bodily harm with intent, rather than grievous bodily harm simpliciter, and that it was manifestly excessive when compared to sentences imposed on other offenders. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the principles of parity in sentencing.

The court held that the sentencing judge’s factual basis was consistent with the jury's verdict, as the judge had considered the voluntary nature of the act and the absence of self-defence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the impulsive nature of the act and the need for general deterrence. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.

Accordingly, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal against sentence, but dismissed the appeal. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be allowed, and that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed

2. Appeal 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.