R v Pu

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PU [2004] QCA 392

PARTIES:

R
v
PU
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 309 of 2004
DC No 1804 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made 28 September 2004
Reasons delivered 22 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 September 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA, White and Jones JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.   Appeal allowed

3.   Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to 19 days imprisonment to 28 September 2004 from 9 September 2004 and thereafter order that she be released on probation for three years, the probation order to be in the usual terms with a special condition that she submit to such parenting, counselling and other programs as directed by her probation officer

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES AND CO-OPERATION – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life – where applicant failed to provide medical treatment to child – whether sentence manifestly excessive – co-operation with authorities – naming of co-offender – discount in sentence applicable – discussion concerning the reasons for discount in such circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A, s 93

R v Cole, unreported, Queensland District Court, Indictment No 366 of 1999, 1 August 2000, considered
R v Field, unreported, Queensland District Court, Indictment No 2917 of 2002, 19 November 2002, considered

R v Salameh (1991) 55 A Crim R 384, followed

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan for the applicant/appellant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

At the conclusion of the hearing on 28 September 2004, the court made the following orders and indicated it would publish its reasons at a later date. The orders are:-

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted;

2. Appeal allowed;

3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to 19 days imprisonment to 28 September 2004 from 9 September 2004 and thereafter order that she be released on probation for three years, the probation order to be in the usual terms with a special condition that she submit to such parenting, counselling and other programs as directed by her probation officer.

The court now publishes its reasons:

THE COURT: The applicant, on 9 September 2004, pleaded guilty to one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her daughter between 7 – 10 June 2003. She was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be suspended after she had served three months with an operational period of two years.

The child was…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child, specifically by neglecting to provide necessary medical treatment. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether any discount for the applicant's cooperation with authorities was appropriate. The applicant had demonstrated contrition and cooperated with authorities by naming a co-offender, which raised the issue of whether a sentence discount was justified in these circumstances.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the applicant's cooperation with authorities warranted a discount in the sentence. The court also needed to discuss the reasons for applying a discount in such circumstances, especially in light of the applicant's plea of guilty, her contrition, and her cooperation in naming a co-offender. The court had to balance these factors against the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter future offences of a similar nature.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the applicant's cooperation with authorities warranted a discount. The court acknowledged the applicant's contrition and her assistance in identifying a co-offender as significant factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court concluded that the discount was justified in these circumstances and set aside the original sentence, imposing a new sentence of 19 days imprisonment with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation for three years, subject to specified conditions. The court allowed the appeal and granted leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to 19 days imprisonment to 28 September 2004 from 9 September 2004 and thereafter order that she be released on probation for three years, the probation order to be in the usual terms with a special condition that she submit to such parenting, counselling and other programs as directed by her probation officer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v PU [2004] QCA 392
PARTIES:	R v PU (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 309 of 2004 DC No 1804 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Orders made 28 September 2004 Reasons delivered 22 October 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 September 2004
JUDGES:	Williams JA, White and Jones JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to 19 days imprisonment to 28 September 2004 from 9 September 2004 and thereafter order that she be released on probation for three years, the probation order to be in the usual terms with a special condition that she submit to such parenting, counselling and other programs as directed by her probation officer
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES AND CO-OPERATION – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life – where applicant failed to provide medical treatment to child – whether sentence manifestly excessive – co-operation with authorities – naming of co-offender – discount in sentence applicable – discussion concerning the reasons for discount in such circumstances Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A, s 93 R v Cole, unreported, Queensland District Court, Indictment No 366 of 1999, 1 August 2000, considered R v Field, unreported, Queensland District Court, Indictment No 2917 of 2002, 19 November 2002, considered R v Salameh (1991) 55 A Crim R 384, followed
COUNSEL:	P J Callaghan for the applicant/appellant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent