R v Price - [2006] QCA 180

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Price [2006] QCA 180

PARTIES:

R
v
PRICE, Duane Aaron
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 38 of 2006
DC No 398 of 2006
DC No 399 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, White and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – applicant convicted after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful wounding and one count of doing grievous bodily harm – sentenced to two years imprisonment for first offence and five years for second offence to be served concurrently with no recommendation for early release – where applicant 17 years at time of offences and has since shown promise for rehabilitation – where first complainant’s athletics career severely hindered and second complainant suffered serious long term injuries – whether sentence was manifestly excessive due to failure to order early release

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(c)

R v Bryan; ex parte A-G(Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18; CA No 410 of 2003, 5 February 2003, considered
R v Hoogsaad [2001] QCA 27; CA No 277 of 2000, 9 February 2001, considered
R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered
R v Tupou; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2005] QCA 179; CA No 88 of 2005, 31 May 2005, considered

COUNSEL:

R A East for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

JERRARD JA: In this matter I have read the reasons for judgment and the order proposed by White J, and respectfully agree with those reasons and the order.

WHITE J: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence pleaded guilty on 10 February 2006 to one count of unlawful wounding on 4 April 2004 and one count of doing grievous bodily harm on 7 May 2004. The undesirably long delay between committing the offences and sentence was not explained. The applicant was 17 years when he committed these offences and 19 when sentenced.

He had a minor offence of being found in a dwelling without lawful excuse the day following the first offence and a breach of a bail condition as a consequence of the second defence. He was remanded in custody after the second offence and released on bail on 2 November 2004. Since then he has remained free of breaches of the law and has been in gainful employment.

He was sentenced to two…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2006] QCA 180
Case: [2006] QCA 180
Decision Date: 26 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Price, was convicted of one count of unlawful wounding and one count of doing grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the first offence and five years for the second offence, to be served concurrently with no recommendation for early release. Price applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive due to the failure to order early release. Price was 17 years old at the time of the offences and has since shown promise for rehabilitation. The first complainant’s athletics career was severely hindered and the second complainant suffered serious long term injuries.

The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive due to the failure to order early release. The court had to consider the appellant's age at the time of the offences, his subsequent promise for rehabilitation, and the impact of the offences on the victims. The court also had to assess the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the availability of early release as a mitigating factor.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that while the appellant was young at the time of the offences and had shown promise for rehabilitation, this did not necessarily warrant a recommendation for early release. The court emphasised the severity of the offences and their impact on the victims. The court also noted that the principle of proportionality in sentencing did not require a recommendation for early release in every case, particularly where the offences were serious and the victims had suffered significant harm. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v Price [2006] QCA 180
PARTIES:	R v PRICE, Duane Aaron (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 38 of 2006 DC No 398 of 2006 DC No 399 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 May 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, White and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
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 REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – applicant convicted after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful wounding and one count of doing grievous bodily harm – sentenced to two years imprisonment for first offence and five years for second offence to be served concurrently with no recommendation for early release – where applicant 17 years at time of offences and has since shown promise for rehabilitation – where first complainant’s athletics career severely hindered and second complainant suffered serious long term injuries – whether sentence was manifestly excessive due to failure to order early release Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(c) R v Bryan; ex parte A-G(Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18; CA No 410 of 2003, 5 February 2003, considered R v Hoogsaad [2001] QCA 27; CA No 277 of 2000, 9 February 2001, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Tupou; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2005] QCA 179; CA No 88 of 2005, 31 May 2005, considered
COUNSEL:	R A East for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent