R v Puchala

[2003] QCA 560

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

R v Puchala [2003] QCA 560

PARTIES: 

R
v
PUCHALA, Paul
(appellant)
PUCHALA, Matthew
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: 

CA No 332 of 2003 CA No 334 of 2003 DC No 352 of 2003

DIVISION: 

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: 

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING 
COURT: 

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EX 

11 December 2003

TEMPORE ON: 

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

11 December 2003

JUDGES: 

Williams JA and Chesterman and McMurdo JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS: 

1.	In each case of Paul Puchala and Matthew Puchala appeal against conviction dismissed
2.	In the case of Matthew Puchala application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
3.	In the case of Paul Puchala (b) Appeal allowed

(c) Add to the sentence imposed at first instance an order that the sentence be suspended after serving nine months with an operational period of four years

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where appellants father and son convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm – where father sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment – where baseball bat used in assault – where no significant criminal history – where appellant had done a large amount of community work over a lengthy period of time – where suffers disability in his hip – whether sentence imposed on father manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	The appellant in CA No 332 of 2003 appeared on his own behalf The appellant in CA No 334 of 2003 appeared on his own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant in CA No 332 of 2003 appeared on his own 10
The appellant in CA No 334 of 2003 appeared on his own behalf
behalf respondent

WILLIAMS JA: After a trial in the District Court, Paul

20

Puchala was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of wilful damage. He was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment on each count of assault occasioning bodily harm, and six months imprisonment on the wilful damage count. All

30

sentences were to be served concurrently.

His son, Matthew Puchala, was convicted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm with a circumstance of aggravation. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment,

40

suspended after six months with an operational period of two years. Both appealed against conviction and sought leave to appeal against sentence.

When written outlines were submitted, Matthew Puchala

50

indicated that if he did not succeed on his appeal against
conviction he did not wish to challenge the sentence. When
the appeal were called on certain matters were drawn to the
attention of the appellants with respect to grounds of appeal
which challenged the appropriateness of their legal
representation. 2 60

After considering issues raised by the Court with…