R v Price - [2004] QCA 10

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Price [2004] QCA 10

PARTIES:

R
v
PRICE, Jason Thomas
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 352 of 2003
DC No 2229 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Davies and McPherson JJA
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 refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant convicted on guilty plea of burglary in the night with violence, rape, serious assault and stealing – where sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where rape and assault of 66 year old woman unknown to applicant in her own home – where applicant apprehended after routine DNA sample taken – where showed remorse and cooperated with authorities – whether mitigating factors sufficiently taken into account

R v Henry [2002] QCA 520, CA No 272 of 2002, 27 November 2002, distinguished
R v Mallie [2000] QCA 188, CA 49 of 2000, 17 May 2000, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty to burglary in the night with violence, rape, serious assault and stealing. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment on the rape and to lesser concurrent periods of imprisonment on the remaining counts. He contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to the plea of guilty.

The complainant was a 66 year old widow living alone in a two-storey dwelling in a northern Brisbane suburb. She was 5'4" tall and weighed nine stone. On 11 March 2000 she had been watching television and went to bed shortly before midnight in her upstairs bedroom. She woke up to see a flickering light in the alcove near the staircase and smelt smoke. She called out, "Is anyone there" and a male voice from within her bedroom replied, "It's Tony." She said, "No Tony lives here". The applicant responded, "He does now".

He sat down on her bed and she screamed and cried. He said, "Don't scream. I'm not going to hurt you, I'm not going to hurt you." She said, "What are you going to do, I am a little old lady." He repeated that he would not hurt her and moved further on to the bed. She was still screaming and he put his hand over her mouth and punched her with a closed fist to the left side of her face about four or five times with great force. She felt immense pain and drained of energy. He straddled her and fumbled with…

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 [2004] QCA 10
Case: [2004] QCA 10
Decision Date: 6 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Price involved the applicant, who was convicted on a guilty plea of burglary in the night with violence, rape, serious assault, and stealing. The court sentenced the applicant to 12 years imprisonment, following the rape and assault of a 66-year-old woman in her own home. The applicant was apprehended after a routine DNA sample was taken, which subsequently matched the DNA found at the crime scene. The applicant showed remorse and cooperated with the authorities during the investigation. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the mitigating factors were not sufficiently taken into account by the sentencing judge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mitigating factors presented by the applicant were adequately considered in the sentencing decision. The court had to examine the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's conduct to determine if the sentence was just and appropriate. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing and the factors that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.

In its reasoning, the court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court acknowledged that the applicant had shown remorse and cooperated with the authorities, but also noted the severity of the crimes committed, particularly the rape and assault of an elderly woman in her own home. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and took into account the relevant mitigating factors presented by the applicant. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

No further orders were made in the case. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the 12-year imprisonment sentence stands.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Price [2004] QCA 10
PARTIES:	R v PRICE, Jason Thomas (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 352 of 2003 DC No 2229 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 February 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Davies and McPherson JJA 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 refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant convicted on guilty plea of burglary in the night with violence, rape, serious assault and stealing – where sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where rape and assault of 66 year old woman unknown to applicant in her own home – where applicant apprehended after routine DNA sample taken – where showed remorse and cooperated with authorities – whether mitigating factors sufficiently taken into account R v Henry [2002] QCA 520, CA No 272 of 2002, 27 November 2002, distinguished R v Mallie [2000] QCA 188, CA 49 of 2000, 17 May 2000, distinguished
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid (Queensland) for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent