SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Rangeley [2003] QCA 116 PARTIES: R
v
RANGELEY, Steven Keith
(applicant)FILE NO/S: CA No 22 of 2003
DC No 489 of 2002DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Maryborough DELIVERED EX 18 March 2003 TEMPORE ON: DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 18 March 2003 JUDGES: McPherson JA, Davies JA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order madeORDER: Application dismissed CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCEOFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDEDCRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – BODILY HARM - SENTENCING– applicant sentenced to two-and-a-half years imprisonment suspended after nine months with an operational period of three years for one count of grievous bodily harm – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Camm [1999] QCA 101; CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April
1999
R v Francisco [1999] QCA 212; CA No 59 of 1999, 8 June
1999COUNSEL: D Murray for the applicant
S G Bain for the respondentSOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent
WHITE J: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted on his own plea of guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm which occurred at Hervey Bay on the 28th of September 2001.
He was sentenced in the District Court on 29 January 2003 to two and a half years imprisonment suspended after nine months with an operational period of three years. The applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the offence including the spontaneous nature of a single blow, the violence offered to the applicant prior thereto and his own injuries, and in light of two particular authorities which were placed before the learned sentencing Judge; Camm, CA 431 of 1998 and Francisco, CA 59 of 1999.
The complainant was the owner and manager of a country club in Hervey Bay where the offence occurred. Earlier in the evening the applicant had caused a disturbance by going into the
ladies toilet area to continue an argument with his wife. bar and the complainant was heard to refuse to serve him further alcohol and invited him to take the courtesy bus home.
The applicant, apparently having left the building, decided to
return and on a second occasion caused a disturbance in the
ladies toilet. Mr Harding, the complainant, was seen to be
bringing him out of that area. Dr Hanelt, a local medical
officer, was a witness to the proceedings. He went to assist
Mr Harding and took hold of the applicant and got him to the
ground. When told to settle down the applicant agreed and
Dr Hanelt let him get up.
The applicant immediately punched the complainant with his closed right fist on the complainant's…
Continue reading R v Rangeley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Rangeley [2003] QCA 116
- Case
- [2003] QCA 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court to decide was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Rangeley, given the gravity of the offences committed. The court was required to consider various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and any other relevant considerations that might inform the sentencing decision. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and the protection of the community.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented during the trial, the submissions made by the prosecution and defence, and the relevant sentencing principles and guidelines. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences and the impact on the victims. The court also took into account Rangeley's criminal history and any mitigating factors that might have been presented. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one that reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the potential for rehabilitation and the protection of the community. The court dismissed the application for a sentence review, upholding the original sentence imposed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.