R v Poynter

Case [2016] QDC 82


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Poynter [2016] QDC 82

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN RAYMOND POYNTER
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment 496/2015

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

13 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2016

JUDGE:

McGill SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – recording conviction as a conviction for a domestic violence offence – so recording conviction for previous offence – to what offences this provision applies.

Criminal Code s 1 (“domestic violence offence”)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1991 s 12A(3)-(6).

Nicholas v R (1998) 193 CLR 173 – cited.
Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 – cited.
R v Koster [2012] QCA 302, 226 A Crim R 247 – cited.
R v MD [2016] QDC 61 – cited.

COUNSEL:

D Orr for the Crown
E G Bassett for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
ATSILS for the defendant

  1. On 5 February 2016 the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm.  The sentence was adjourned, and came on before me on 4 April 2016 when the defendant also pleaded guilty to one summary offence, contravention of a protection order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (“the Act”). The complainant in both matters was at the time of the offending in a long term de-facto relationship with the defendant, and a protection order had been made in her favour in February 2015. I sentenced him to a term of imprisonment for the indictable offence, in respect of which a conviction was recorded and, pursuant to s 12A(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1991 (“PSA”), ordered that the conviction also be recorded as a conviction for a domestic violence offence.  For the summary offence the defendant was convicted and a conviction was recorded[1] but he was not further punished.

    [1]After considering s 12A of the PSA further, I ought to have recorded that conviction as a conviction for a domestic violence offence also.

  1. On that day the prosecutor filed by leave an application pursuant to s 12(3) of the PSA seeking an order that four earlier offences of which the defendant had been convicted be recorded as convictions for a domestic violence offence.  After hearing submissions from the prosecutor, I reserved my decision.  I was at the time concerned about whether this had the effect of attributing additional significance to a conviction which had previously been dealt with by a court, and whether if so that might infringe against the principle of non-retrospectivity of criminal laws.[2]  In the event however it seems to me that, for a different reason, that issue does not arise in this matter.

    [2]Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 at 609 – 626 per Deane J. This however was a dissenting judgment: Nicholas v R (1998) 193 CLR 173 at [149] per Gummow J. As to the presumption of non-retrospectivity, see R…

Continue reading R v Poynter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Poynter [2016] QDC 82
Case
[2016] QDC 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Poynter involved the respondent, who had been convicted of a criminal offence and was subject to a sentence that included the recording of this conviction as a domestic violence offence. The respondent sought to have the conviction not recorded as a domestic violence offence. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conviction for the respondent's previous offence should be recorded as a conviction for a domestic violence offence under the relevant legislation. This involved an interpretation of the statutory provisions that define what constitutes a domestic violence offence and how previous convictions should be recorded.

The court examined the statutory framework and determined that the respondent's previous offence did not meet the criteria for being classified as a domestic violence offence under the relevant legislation. The court found that the provisions in question applied to specific types of offences and that the respondent's previous offence did not fall within these categories. As a result, the court dismissed the application to have the conviction not recorded as a domestic violence offence.

The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory language and the specific criteria outlined in the legislation. The court held that the respondent's application was not supported by the statutory provisions and therefore dismissed the application. Consequently, the conviction for the respondent's previous offence remained recorded as a domestic violence offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.