R v Pringle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) - [2012] QCA 223

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pringle; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2012] QCA 223

PARTIES:

R
v
PRINGLE, Mark Stephen
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 6 of 2012
SC No 548 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 June 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing his partner – where he removed children from the scene mid offence – where he was of diminished responsibility at the time of the killing – where he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment – whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate – whether pursuant to s 161B Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) a serious violent offender declaration should have been made

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 161B

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39, cited
R v Goodfellow Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Fryberg J, No 219 of 2004, 15 October 2004, considered
R v Miguel [1994] QCA 512, considered
R v Palmer Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Peter Lyons J, No 1039 of 2010, 11 August 2011, considered
R v Potter; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 183 A Crim R 497; [2008] QCA 91, considered
Re Pringle [2011] QHMC, Unreported, Ann Lyons J, No 0289 of 2009, 4 April 2011, related
R v Ward Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Mullins J, No 74 of 1999, 8 December 2000, considered
R v Yarwood[2011] QCA 367, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan SC for the appellant
J J Allen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondents

MARGARET McMURDO P: The respondent pleaded guilty on 13 December 2011 to unlawfully killing his partner on 26 October 2008. He was sentenced on 14 December 2011 to nine years imprisonment. A declaration was made that 1,144 days of pre-sentence custody was time already served under the sentence. The appellant, the Attorney-General of Queensland, has appealed contending the sentence is manifestly inadequate and that the judge erred in failing to declare the respondent to be convicted of a serious violent offence under s 161B Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

Antecedents

He was 40 years old at the time of the killing. He had some relatively minor criminal history but none for violence. In 1987, he was placed on three years probation and ordered to perform 240 hours community service and pay $710 restitution for three property offences. In 1996, he was fined $600 without conviction for possession of a dangerous drug…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Pringle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QCA 223
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Pringle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld), the respondent had pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing his partner while removing their children from the scene during the commission of the offence. The respondent's plea was predicated on diminished responsibility at the time of the offence. The sentence imposed by the lower court was nine years imprisonment, which the Attorney-General of Queensland considered manifestly inadequate. The Attorney-General also argued that, pursuant to section 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), a serious violent offender declaration should have been made in respect of the respondent. The central legal issues were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the court should have made a serious violent offender declaration.

The court considered the principles governing appeals against sentences for manifestly inadequate or excessive punishments. The court noted that a sentence is manifestly inadequate if it falls below the range of sentences that could reasonably be imposed for the offence in question. The court assessed the sentence by considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's culpability, and the principles of sentencing. The court also examined whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate by reference to the statutory criteria for a serious violent offender declaration. The court found that, while the offence was serious, the sentence was within the range of sentences that could reasonably be imposed. The court also concluded that the respondent did not meet the criteria for a serious violent offender declaration under section 161B.

The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the sentence of nine years imprisonment and rejected the argument that it was manifestly inadequate. The court also found that the respondent did not qualify for a serious violent offender declaration. The court held that the lower court's sentence was appropriate in the circumstances, and there were no grounds for interference. The court's decision reinforced the principle that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with the sentencing decisions of lower courts unless there is a clear error in the application of sentencing principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Pringle; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2012] QCA 223
PARTIES:	R v PRINGLE, Mark Stephen (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 6 of 2012 SC No 548 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 June 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing his partner – where he removed children from the scene mid offence – where he was of diminished responsibility at the time of the killing – where he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment – whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate – whether pursuant to s 161B Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) a serious violent offender declaration should have been made Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 161B Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39, cited R v Goodfellow Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Fryberg J, No 219 of 2004, 15 October 2004, considered R v Miguel [1994] QCA 512, considered R v Palmer Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Peter Lyons J, No 1039 of 2010, 11 August 2011, considered R v Potter; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 183 A Crim R 497; [2008] QCA 91, considered Re Pringle [2011] QHMC, Unreported, Ann Lyons J, No 0289 of 2009, 4 April 2011, related R v Ward Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Mullins J, No 74 of 1999, 8 December 2000, considered R v Yarwood[2011] QCA 367, cited
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan SC for the appellant J J Allen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondents