R v Presgrave - [2014] QCA 105

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105

PARTIES:

R
v
PRESGRAVE, Joel Peter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 217 of 2013
DC No 139 of 2013
DC No 263 of 2013
DC No 264 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

9 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Thomas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, one count of committing public nuisance, one count of going armed so as to cause fear, one count of breach of bail condition, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, one count of driving without a license, one count of driving without a license (repeat offender), and one count of failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm, to be served cumulatively with an 18 month sentence for the assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed; and concurrently with six months imprisonment for the count of going armed in public, and two months imprisonment for the unlawful use of motor vehicle and committing public nuisance, with a parole eligibility date set after one third of the head sentence is served – where some of the offences were committed whilst the applicant was on bail for the grievous bodily harm offence – where the applicant is 25 years of age and has a criminal history of violent offences – where the offences were of a sustained nature and where the applicant showed no remorse – whether the sentences for grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm should have been imposed cumulatively – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive

R v Baker[2012] QCA 237, cited
R v Barry[2011] QCA 119, applied
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, cited
R v Dancey[2013] QCA 135, cited
R v Johnston[2004] QCA 12, cited
R v Thomason; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2011] QCA 9, cited
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Thomas J and the order he proposes.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Thomas…

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 Presgrave

Details

AGLC: R v Presgrave [2014] QCA 105
Case: [2014] QCA 105
Decision Date: 9 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who had pleaded guilty to various serious offences, appealed against the severity of his sentence. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentencing was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The applicant's offences included grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, committing public nuisance, and various other related charges. The sentences imposed were for four years for grievous bodily harm, 18 months for assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, and various concurrent and cumulative sentences for other offences. The applicant argued that the cumulative sentencing for grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm was inappropriate and that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles governing sentencing, particularly the need to balance the severity of the crime with the need for punishment and deterrence. It considered the applicant's criminal history, the sustained nature of the offences, and the lack of remorse shown by the applicant. The court noted that cumulative sentencing for grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm was permissible where the offences were distinct and warranted separate punishment. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The applicant's appeal against sentence was ultimately dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Presgrave [2014] QCA 105
PARTIES:	R v PRESGRAVE, Joel Peter (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 217 of 2013 DC No 139 of 2013 DC No 263 of 2013 DC No 264 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	9 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Fraser JJA and Thomas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, one count of committing public nuisance, one count of going armed so as to cause fear, one count of breach of bail condition, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, one count of driving without a license, one count of driving without a license (repeat offender), and one count of failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm, to be served cumulatively with an 18 month sentence for the assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed; and concurrently with six months imprisonment for the count of going armed in public, and two months imprisonment for the unlawful use of motor vehicle and committing public nuisance, with a parole eligibility date set after one third of the head sentence is served – where some of the offences were committed whilst the applicant was on bail for the grievous bodily harm offence – where the applicant is 25 years of age and has a criminal history of violent offences – where the offences were of a sustained nature and where the applicant showed no remorse – whether the sentences for grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm should have been imposed cumulatively – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive R v Baker[2012] QCA 237, cited R v Barry[2011] QCA 119, applied R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, cited R v Dancey[2013] QCA 135, cited R v Johnston[2004] QCA 12, cited R v Thomason; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2011] QCA 9, cited Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent