R v Parkes - [1993] QCA 34

[1993] QCA 034

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
PINCUS JA

DAVIES JA

CA NO 344 OF 1992
THE QUEEN
v.
BARRY MICHEAL PARKES
BRISBANE
..DATE 02/02/93

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I shall ask Mr Justice Pincus to deliver his reasons first.

PINCUS JA: This application for leave to appeal against sentence on behalf of Barry Michael Parkes is founded on the single submission put by Mr Rafter that the sentence imposed upon the applicant was excessive by comparison with that imposed upon a co-offender. The offence in question occurred when a group of young people or a group of people attacked 2 complainants for the purpose, it appears, of inducing one of them, Canniford, to pay a debt said to be due to one of them, Canniford, to pay a debt said to be due to one of he group of attackers whose name was Edwards.

The debt of $600 was suggested to relate to drug dealings but that suggestion was denied. The group attacked Canniford when he was in the company of a woman, whose name is Eichenroff, in a motor vehicle. In fact, Canniford was struck by a pipe or stick and his injury was such as to be likely to cause very serious harm to him in that arteries were severed. In fact, however, gratuitously, he apparently recovered well. The other person attacked, Eichenroff, was struck on the head but did not suffer serious injury.

Now, the charges or counts which were ultimately made consists in a charge of grievous bodily harm against 3 person, the applicant, Edwards and one Harris. A charge of unlawful assault on Eichenroff against the same 3 persons and a charge of wilfully and unlawfully damaging a motor vehicle, brought against Harris.

There were pleas of guilty in respect of all of those charges and all of them were related to the incident which I mentioned, that is , the mass attack upon Canniford with a view to obtaining payment of a debt.

The ring leader, so to speak, appears to have been Edward and the judge imposed a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment on Edwards in respect of the grievous bodily harm charge and recommended him to be considered for parole after 18 months. His Honour imposed a sentence of 12 month’s imprisonment of Edwards in respect of the assault upon Eichenroff. As far as Harris was concerned, the same sentences were imposed in respect of those 2 charges with the reservation that he be recommended for parole after 12 months rather than 18 months.

Harris, as I’ve mentioned, was also charged with and convicted of unlawfully damaging a motor vehicle and in respect of that charge, he was sentenced to a period of 3 months’ imprisonment. There were also other charges against Harris which I shall mention later.

Now, the applicant, in respect of the 2 charges where he was a co-offender with Harris, received the same sentences, that is he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment in respect of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Parkes

Details

AGLC: R v Parkes [1993] QCA 34
Case: [1993] QCA 34
Decision Date: 2/02/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Barry Micheal Parkes, the appellant, Barry Michael Parkes, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by the trial judge. The appeal was predicated on the argument that the sentence was excessive when compared to that of his co-offender, Harris. The incident in question involved a group of people attacking two complainants, Canniford and Eichenroff, to compel Canniford to pay a debt. Canniford suffered severe injuries, while Eichenroff sustained minor injuries. Parkes, Edwards, and Harris were charged with grievous bodily harm, assault, and damage to a motor vehicle. All three pleaded guilty.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Parkes was excessive in comparison to that imposed on Harris, given their differing criminal histories and levels of culpability. The court had to consider whether the disparity in sentences was so substantial as to warrant the intervention of an appellate court. The court referenced the principle established in Lowe v The Queen, which held that a disparity in sentences must be manifestly excessive to justify appellate court intervention.

The court found that Harris had a significantly worse criminal record and was more culpable in the attack, having personally committed acts of violence. Despite this, the sentences imposed on Parkes and Harris were identical. The court concluded that the discrepancy was substantial enough to warrant the intervention of the appellate court. Pincus JA reduced Parkes' sentence for grievous bodily harm to three years, with parole eligibility after nine months, while maintaining the sentence for assault. The Chief Justice and Davies JA concurred with these orders.

Orders