R v Peirson - [2006] QCA 251

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Peirson [2006] QCA 251

PARTIES:

R
v
PEIRSON, Jarrod Lee
(applicant / appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 71 of 2006

DC 56 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

14 July 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence
granted
2. Appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the count of unlawful deprivation of liberty; but otherwise the sentence application is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – whether sentence was manifestly excessive - whether trial judge should not have considered the psychological impact of the Applicant’s conduct

R v Burns [2000] QCA 201; CA No 399 of 1999, 30 May 2000, cited
R v Edwards [2001] QCA 366; CA No 173 of 2001, 5 September 2001, considered
R v Real [2001] QCA 422; CA No 92 of 2001, 5 October 2001, considered
R v Robinson & Stokes; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] 2 Qd R 413; [1999] QCA 181, cited.
R v Roelandts (2002) 131 A Crim R 590; [2002] QCA 254, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the applicant
L J Clare for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1] JERRARD JA: In this application I have read the reasons for judgment of Cullinane J, and the orders proposed by His Honour, and respectfully agree with those reasons and orders.

[2] CULLINANE J: The Applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of five years to be suspended after two years with an operational period of three years for the offence of torture to which he pleaded guilty in the District Court at Mackay on 15 March 2006.

[3] This offence was one of three indictable offences to which he pleaded guilty at that time. One of these was an offence of deprivation of liberty for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of 2 years imprisonment. The Respondent conceded that no further penalty should have been imposed in respect of that count in accordance with what was said in R v Robinson & Stokes; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] 2 Qd R 413.

[4] At the same time that he was dealt with for these offences he was also dealt with for four summary offences. For present purposes the only relevant summary offences were two offences of breaching a domestic violence order.

[5] The Applicant had spent some 249 days in pre-sentence custody and this was declared to be…

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 Peirson

Details

AGLC: R v Peirson [2006] QCA 251
Case: [2006] QCA 251
Decision Date: 14 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Peirson, the applicant appealed against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge should not have considered the psychological impact of the applicant's conduct. The applicant was convicted of unlawful deprivation of liberty, and the trial judge imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment. The applicant argued that the trial judge should have considered the psychological impact of his conduct, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court of appeal considered the applicant's arguments and found that the trial judge had erred in failing to consider the psychological impact of the applicant's conduct. The court also found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and granted the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the count of unlawful deprivation of liberty. However, the sentence application was refused in all other respects.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in failing to consider the psychological impact of the applicant's conduct, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in failing to consider the psychological impact of the applicant's conduct, which was a relevant consideration in sentencing. The court also found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as it was significantly higher than sentences imposed for similar offences in similar circumstances. The court considered the principles of sentencing and found that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the need to deter the applicant and others from committing similar offences. The court also found that the sentence did not reflect the applicant's personal circumstances, including his age, health, and background.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence

granted

2. Appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the count of unlawful deprivation of liberty; but otherwise the sentence application 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 Peirson [2006] QCA 251
PARTIES:	R v PEIRSON, Jarrod Lee (applicant / appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 71 of 2006 DC 56 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	14 July 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the count of unlawful deprivation of liberty; but otherwise the sentence application is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – whether sentence was manifestly excessive - whether trial judge should not have considered the psychological impact of the Applicant’s conduct R v Burns [2000] QCA 201; CA No 399 of 1999, 30 May 2000, cited R v Edwards [2001] QCA 366; CA No 173 of 2001, 5 September 2001, considered R v Real [2001] QCA 422; CA No 92 of 2001, 5 October 2001, considered R v Robinson & Stokes; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] 2 Qd R 413; [1999] QCA 181, cited. R v Roelandts (2002) 131 A Crim R 590; [2002] QCA 254, considered
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the applicant L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent