R v Ray - [2011] QCA 365

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ray [2011] QCA 365

PARTIES:

R
v
RAY, David Samuel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 259 of 2011
SC No 6 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.1.

Appeal against sentence allowed.2.

Instead of the sentences imposed below for counts 3, 4 and 5 impose a sentence of 14 years imprisonment on each of counts 3 and 4 and three years imprisonment on count 5.3.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of murder; two counts of rape; two counts of burglary; one count of breaking, entering and stealing; and one summary offence of trespass – where subject offences committed against 82 year old woman living alone – where applicant aged 18 and intoxicated – where applicant sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and each count of rape; 15 years imprisonment for one burglary; lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences, to be served concurrently – where applicant seeks leave to appeal against two life sentences for rape offences and 15 year term of imprisonment for one burglary – where respondent concedes 15 year term of imprisonment for one burglary should be reduced to three years – where respondent seeks to hold two life sentences for rape – where primary judge’s sentencing of these offences influenced by contribution of those offences to victim’s death – whether sentences manifestly excessive

Buckley v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 605; [2006] HCA 7, considered
R v Bolton[2005] QCA 335, cited
R v Edwards [2004] QCA 20, considered
R v H[2001] QCA 167, cited
R v Jerome [1997] QCA 299, considered
R v Mallie [2000] QCA 188, cited
R v Newman (2007) 172 A Crim R 171; [2007] QCA 198, considered
R v O’Brien[2008] QCA 163, considered
R v Price[2004] QCA 10, considered
R v Robinson[2007] QCA 99, considered
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the applicant
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with White JA's reasons for granting the application for leave to appeal and allowing the appeal against sentence. I agree with the orders proposed by her Honour.

WHITE JA: On 12 September 2011 in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of murder;…

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 Ray

Details

AGLC: R v Ray [2011] QCA 365
Case: [2011] QCA 365
Decision Date: 13 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ray involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including murder, rape, burglary, and trespass. The offences were committed against an 82-year-old woman living alone, with the applicant being 18 years old and intoxicated at the time. The primary judge sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for the murder and each count of rape, 15 years imprisonment for one burglary, and lesser terms for the other offences, to be served concurrently. The applicant sought leave to appeal against two life sentences for rape and the 15-year term for one burglary, while the respondent conceded that the 15-year term for one burglary should be reduced to three years.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the two life sentences for rape and the 15-year term for one burglary were appropriate. The sentencing judge had taken into account the contribution of the rape offences to the victim's death, which influenced the severity of the sentences. The court needed to evaluate the appropriateness of these sentences in light of the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case.

In determining the appeal, the court examined the severity of the crimes and the principles of sentencing. It held that the two life sentences for rape were manifestly excessive due to the significant reduction in the applicant's culpability as a result of intoxication and youth. The court also found that the 15-year term for one burglary was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to three years. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, and the appeal against the sentence was allowed. The court ordered that instead of the original sentences, the applicant should serve 14 years imprisonment for each of counts 3 and 4 (rape) and three years imprisonment for count 5 (burglary).

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.1.

Appeal against sentence allowed.2.

Instead of the sentences imposed below for counts 3, 4 and 5 impose a sentence of 14 years imprisonment on each of counts 3 and 4 and three years imprisonment on count 5.3.

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 Ray [2011] QCA 365
PARTIES:	R v RAY, David Samuel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 259 of 2011 SC No 6 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	13 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 December 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.1. Appeal against sentence allowed.2. Instead of the sentences imposed below for counts 3, 4 and 5 impose a sentence of 14 years imprisonment on each of counts 3 and 4 and three years imprisonment on count 5.3.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of murder; two counts of rape; two counts of burglary; one count of breaking, entering and stealing; and one summary offence of trespass – where subject offences committed against 82 year old woman living alone – where applicant aged 18 and intoxicated – where applicant sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and each count of rape; 15 years imprisonment for one burglary; lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences, to be served concurrently – where applicant seeks leave to appeal against two life sentences for rape offences and 15 year term of imprisonment for one burglary – where respondent concedes 15 year term of imprisonment for one burglary should be reduced to three years – where respondent seeks to hold two life sentences for rape – where primary judge’s sentencing of these offences influenced by contribution of those offences to victim’s death – whether sentences manifestly excessive Buckley v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 605; [2006] HCA 7, considered R v Bolton[2005] QCA 335, cited R v Edwards [2004] QCA 20, considered R v H[2001] QCA 167, cited R v Jerome [1997] QCA 299, considered R v Mallie [2000] QCA 188, cited R v Newman (2007) 172 A Crim R 171; [2007] QCA 198, considered R v O’Brien[2008] QCA 163, considered R v Price[2004] QCA 10, considered R v Robinson[2007] QCA 99, considered Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn SC for the applicant D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent