SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Price; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2011] QCA 87
PARTIES:
R
v
PRICE, Benjamin Thomas
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)R
v
PRICE, Benjamin Thomas
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 271 of 2010
CA No 273 of 2010
DC No 262 of 2010DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence appeal by A-G (Qld)
Sentence applicationORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:
6 May 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 April 2011
JUDGES:
Muir JA and Atkinson and Peter Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. To the extent necessary, the attorney-general be granted leave to amend his notice of appeal and the time for the institution of his appeal be extended to 14 April 2011.
2. The appeal by the Attorney-General be dismissed.
3. The application for leave to appeal by the applicant, Benjamin Price, be refused.
4. The application for leave to adduce further evidence be refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent plead guilty to three counts of unlawful assault doing bodily harm and one count of unlawful assault against three complainants – where respondent was a Senior Constable in the Queensland Police Service – where a head sentence of 27 months imprisonment was imposed to reflect the overall criminality of the respondent’s conduct – where respondent argued that the sentencing judge failed to take into account certain factual matters, his early pleas of guilty and other relevant mitigating factors – where respondent submitted that the sentencing discretion miscarried because the sentencing judge gave too much weight to general deterrence, accepted the prosecutor’s allegation that no remorse had been shown and allowed the prosecutor to refer to Facebook entries allegedly created by the respondent without proof of authorship of their existence – where respondent argued that his initial reaction in each case was provoked by the complainant – whether sentences manifestly excessive – whether leave to appeal should be granted
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where sentencing judge took into account, among other things, the respondent’s use of “inappropriate and grossly excessive force” in respect of each of the offences – where appellant Attorney-General submitted that the sentences imposed failed to give weight to the increased maximum penalties for such offences and the amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where appellant argued that the sentences imposed were inadequate because the offences were committed by a police officer on duty, involved the deliberate infliction of pain and resulted in not insignificant injuries – whether sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where appellant’s notice of appeal failed to…
Continue reading R v Price; ex parte
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Price; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2011] QCA 87
- Case
- [2011] QCA 87
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors. The court noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account the inappropriate and excessive force used by Price in each offence, and had balanced this with the mitigating factors presented. The court also considered the submissions made by the Attorney-General regarding the increased penalties for such offences and the amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Ultimately, the court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised his discretion.
The court also considered the Attorney-General's notice of appeal, which was argued to be defective as it failed to disclose a ground that would enable the appeal to succeed. Despite this, the court held that a defective notice of appeal did not render the appeal invalid or mean that the Court’s jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. Therefore, the court granted the Attorney-General leave to amend his notice of appeal and extended the time for the institution of his appeal. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed because the sentences were not found to be manifestly excessive or inadequate. The application for leave to appeal by Price was also refused, as was the application for leave to adduce further evidence.
The court's final orders included granting the Attorney-General leave to amend his notice of appeal and extending the time for the institution of his appeal. The appeal by the Attorney-General was dismissed, and Price's application for leave to appeal was also refused. Additionally, the application for leave to adduce further evidence was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. To the extent necessary, the attorney-general be granted leave to amend his notice of appeal and the time for the institution of his appeal be extended to 14 April 2011.
2. The appeal by the Attorney-General be dismissed.
3. The application for leave to appeal by the applicant, Benjamin Price, be refused.
4. The application for leave to adduce further evidence be 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.