R v Pavey-Rees - [2020] QCA 29

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pavey-Rees [2020] QCA 29

PARTIES:

R
v
PAVEY-REES, Brandon
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 324 of 2018
SC No 1 of 2017
SC No 33 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Maryborough – Date of Sentence: 2 November 2018 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2020

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Morrison and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter – where a sentence of ten years imprisonment was imposed with the result that the applicant was convicted of a serious violent offence and was not eligible for parole until he had served eight years in custody – whether the sentence for manslaughter is manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant contends that the sentencing judge failed to have adequate regard to his youth, immaturity and prospects of rehabilitation – where the applicant argues that the sentence ought to have been reduced having regard to the fact that he was not receiving medication for a psychiatric condition at the time of the offence – where the applicant disputes the facts on which the sentencing judge relied in sentencing – where the sentencing judge expressly took the applicant’s youth, immaturity and prospects of rehabilitation into account – where there was no evidence that the applicant suffered from relevant symptoms at the time of the offence or that medication would have made any difference to his conduct – where the sentencing judge was entitled to rely on the statement of agreed facts tendered at sentence – whether any error is shown

R v Clark[2009] QCA 361, distinguished
R v Derks[2011] QCA 295, considered
R v Glenbar (2013) 240 A Crim R 22; [2013] QCA 353, considered
R v Kelly[1999] QCA 296, cited
R v Robertson[2010] QCA 319, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: The applicant, who was self-represented, sought leave to appeal against a sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on him for manslaughter, with the automatic consequence that he was deemed convicted of a serious violent offence and was not eligible for parole until he had served eight years. He was at the same time convicted of summary charges of driving while disqualified from holding a driver licence and failing to stop his motor vehicle when given a direction to do so by a police officer. The ground of the proposed appeal is that the sentence…

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 Pavey-Rees

Details

AGLC: R v Pavey-Rees [2020] QCA 29
Case: [2020] QCA 29
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pavey-Rees involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter. The applicant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, which resulted in him being convicted of a serious violent offence and made ineligible for parole until he had served eight years in custody. The applicant contested the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider his youth, immaturity, and prospects for rehabilitation. He also contended that the sentence should have been reduced as he was not receiving medication for a psychiatric condition at the time of the offence.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider his youth, immaturity, and rehabilitation prospects. However, the court noted that the sentencing judge had expressly taken these factors into account. The court also found that there was no evidence that the applicant suffered from relevant symptoms at the time of the offence or that medication would have made any difference to his conduct. The sentencing judge was entitled to rely on the statement of agreed facts tendered at sentence. The court concluded that no error was shown.

In light of the above, the court refused the application for leave to appeal. This decision confirms that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The applicant’s arguments regarding his youth, immaturity, and prospects of rehabilitation were not sufficient to demonstrate that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the offender’s background and prospects for rehabilitation, but also the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v Pavey-Rees [2020] QCA 29
PARTIES:	R v PAVEY-REES, Brandon (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 324 of 2018 SC No 1 of 2017 SC No 33 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Maryborough – Date of Sentence: 2 November 2018 (Applegarth J)
DELIVERED ON:	28 February 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 February 2020
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter – where a sentence of ten years imprisonment was imposed with the result that the applicant was convicted of a serious violent offence and was not eligible for parole until he had served eight years in custody – whether the sentence for manslaughter is manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant contends that the sentencing judge failed to have adequate regard to his youth, immaturity and prospects of rehabilitation – where the applicant argues that the sentence ought to have been reduced having regard to the fact that he was not receiving medication for a psychiatric condition at the time of the offence – where the applicant disputes the facts on which the sentencing judge relied in sentencing – where the sentencing judge expressly took the applicant’s youth, immaturity and prospects of rehabilitation into account – where there was no evidence that the applicant suffered from relevant symptoms at the time of the offence or that medication would have made any difference to his conduct – where the sentencing judge was entitled to rely on the statement of agreed facts tendered at sentence – whether any error is shown R v Clark[2009] QCA 361, distinguished R v Derks[2011] QCA 295, considered R v Glenbar (2013) 240 A Crim R 22; [2013] QCA 353, considered R v Kelly[1999] QCA 296, cited R v Robertson[2010] QCA 319, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent