R v Pryce - [2016] QCA 43

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pryce [2016] QCA 43

PARTIES:

R
v
PRYCE, Aaron Paul
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 91 of 2015
CA No 246 of 2015
DC No 242 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 25 February 2015; Date of Sentence: 22 April 2015

DELIVERED ON:

1 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

2. The application to extend time to appeal against conviction be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to ten counts for offences committed in the course of a violent home invasion – where the agreed facts of count 7 stated that the applicant made comments to a female victim, B, whilst the applicant’s co-offender ran the blade of a machete up her back – where the agreed facts of count 10 stated that the applicant made similar comments to his co-offender whilst the co-offender threatened a female victim, C, with a machete – where the witness statement of B did not make reference to the applicant making the comments contained in the agreed facts of count 7 – where the applicant contends that the words attributed to him in relation to count 7 of the agreed facts were actually spoken after the assault which was the subject of count 10 – whether there was a miscarriage of justice by the applicant’s conviction on counts 7 and 10 because they were not supported by the prosecution’s witness statements

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to ten counts for offences committed in the course of a violent home invasion – where the applicant and his co-offender received identical sentences – where the applicant contends that his participation in the offences was less serious than the co-offender – where the applicant further contends that differences in their respective criminal histories warranted different sentences – whether the sentences imposed offended the parity principle

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to ten counts for offences committed in the course of a violent home invasion – where sentences of eight years with a serious violent offence declaration were imposed for an offence of armed robbery and three counts of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – where the applicant contends the sentences are manifestly…

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 Pryce

Details

AGLC: R v Pryce [2016] QCA 43
Case: [2016] QCA 43
Decision Date: 1 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pryce, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence for offences committed during a violent home invasion. The applicant, represented by counsel, had pleaded guilty to ten counts, including charges of sexual assault while armed and in company. The applicant now challenges his conviction on counts 7 and 10, which involved comments made during the assault of two female victims by the applicant's co-offender, Winslade. The applicant contends that his comments were not contemporaneous with the assaults as described in the agreed facts, and therefore, his convictions were not supported by the witness statements. Additionally, the applicant contests the parity of his sentence with that of Winslade, and argues that his sentence is manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the applicant's convictions on counts 7 and 10 not being supported by the prosecution's witness statements, whether the applicant's participation in the offences was less serious than Winslade's, and whether the applicant's sentences were manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine if the applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was within the appropriate timeframe and if the sentences imposed complied with the principle of parity and were not manifestly excessive.

The court found that the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction was not in the interests of justice, and therefore, it was refused. The court also held that the applicant's convictions on counts 7 and 10 were not a miscarriage of justice, as the agreed facts were supported by the witness statements. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that there was no error in principle in imposing identical sentences on both the applicant and Winslade, and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the applicant's appeal against his sentence was without merit.

ORDERS:
1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.
2. The application to extend time to appeal against conviction be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

2. The application to extend time to appeal against conviction be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Amongst the offences upon this indictment were counts 7 and 10, which charged the applicant and Winslade with sexual assault whilst armed and in company. Each was sentenced to five years upon each of these counts. The applicant, like Winslade, had pleaded guilty to each of the counts and agreed to a statement of facts which was tendered to the sentencing judge. However the applicant now wishes to challenge his conviction for the sexual offences and to that end, on 6 October 2015, he filed an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against those convictions.The facts of the offending The applicant, who was represented by counsel, agreed to the sentencing judge acting upon a statement of agreed facts from which the following occurred. Shortly before 7 pm on 4 December 2013, the applicant and Winslade went to a house at which there were present six young people, five of whom lived there. The applicant wore a “skeleton half bandana” around his mouth. They entered through a closed but unlocked door. They began by telling the occupants to gather in the kitchen, including one of the young women who was then undressed in the bathroom. There followed threats and acts of violence over the next 30 minutes before police came in response to a call from neighbours who had heard screams from the house. Wallets and other items were stolen. When police arrived they found the applicant attempting to escape out of a bedroom window. Each of the offenders was carrying a machete and several of the occupants were wounded by them. Winslade struck one of the young women (B) to her face with the top of the blade of his machete, causing an injury before striking her shoulder with the blade of the machete causing a 2 cm laceration which required stitches. The applicant was present when that occurred. Winslade struck one of the young men to the knee with an overhead swing of the machete blade causing a wound to his leg down to the bone. Each of the defendants taunted the man inviting him to fight. Winslade punched and kicked him before removing other items in the house. The applicant went to strike another of the young women (C) with his own machete but one of the young men tried to defend against that blow with the result that the applicant’s machete struck his hand and wounded him with a laceration to a tendon. When one of the women began screaming and one of the men moved to comfort her, Winslade struck him to the right side of the head with the machete blade causing a 10 cm laceration that ran from his right eye around to his ear. Again the applicant was present when that occurred. One of the offenders (although it could not be said which of them) struck C to the leg with the blade of his machete causing a 15 cm wound to her thigh together with a 7 cm laceration over her lower leg. The agreed facts as to the sexual offences were as follows:“Count 7[B] was seated in the kitchen wearing only a towel. Winslade came towards her from behind and said ‘I haven’t had a root in a while and you are a fresh piece of meat, I might take you here and now’. He ran the blade of his machete up her back to lift her towel in order to look at her genitals. Pryce was present for this and likewise armed. He (Pryce) said ‘you girls are lucky we don’t rape you, we could’. He spoke about which of the girls present were ‘prettier’ and said to one of the men present, that they were ‘lucky we are not raping your women’.”“Count 10Winslade approached [C] whilst yelling at her and pointing his machete at her vagina. She pleaded with him ‘please don’t’. Winslade rubbed the complainant on the outside of her shorts, to her vagina. During the home invasion, Pryce mentioned to [C] that he ‘should rape you, you’re pretty aren’t you’ and he was present for the assault by Winslade.”The sentencing judge’s reasons

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 Pryce [2016] QCA 43
PARTIES:	R v PRYCE, Aaron Paul (applicant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 91 of 2015 CA No 246 of 2015 DC No 242 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 25 February 2015; Date of Sentence: 22 April 2015
DELIVERED ON:	1 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused. 2. The application to extend time to appeal against conviction be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to ten counts for offences committed in the course of a violent home invasion – where the agreed facts of count 7 stated that the applicant made comments to a female victim, B, whilst the applicant’s co-offender ran the blade of a machete up her back – where the agreed facts of count 10 stated that the applicant made similar comments to his co-offender whilst the co-offender threatened a female victim, C, with a machete – where the witness statement of B did not make reference to the applicant making the comments contained in the agreed facts of count 7 – where the applicant contends that the words attributed to him in relation to count 7 of the agreed facts were actually spoken after the assault which was the subject of count 10 – whether there was a miscarriage of justice by the applicant’s conviction on counts 7 and 10 because they were not supported by the prosecution’s witness statements CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to ten counts for offences committed in the course of a violent home invasion – where the applicant and his co-offender received identical sentences – where the applicant contends that his participation in the offences was less serious than the co-offender – where the applicant further contends that differences in their respective criminal histories warranted different sentences – whether the sentences imposed offended the parity principle CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to ten counts for offences committed in the course of a violent home invasion – where sentences of eight years with a serious violent offence declaration were imposed for an offence of armed robbery and three counts of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – where the applicant contends the sentences are manifestly…