R v Rbo

Case [2024] QCA 214

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v RBO [2024] QCA 214

PARTIES:

R
v
RBO
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 118 of 2024
DC No 1973 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 16 May 2024; Date of Sentence: 17 May 2024 (Rosengren DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Brown JA and Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal sentence granted.

3.   Appeal against sentence allowed, to the following extent:

(a)   set aside the sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for count 4 and substitute a sentence on that count of 12 months’ imprisonment;

(b)  set aside the order suspending the terms of imprisonment after eight months for an operational period of 18 months and substitute an order suspending the terms of imprisonment after six months for an operational period of 12 months.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of common assault against his wife – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of rape, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of common assault – where the appellant submits a multiplicity of issues so undermined the reliability of the evidence of the alleged offending that it was not reasonably open to the jury to convict – whether the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after trial before a jury of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of common assault – where the complainant was the applicant’s wife – where the domestically violent offences involved a single episode of repeated pushes occasioning minor injuries to the complainant by the applicant – where the applicant fell to be sentenced as a first offender – where there was an extraordinary four year delay in prosecuting the applicant – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337, cited
R v Cockerell (2001) 126 A Crim R 444; [2001] VSCA 239, cited
R v Cox[2013] QCA 10, cited
R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363; [1995] QCA 329, applied
R v GBM[2024] QCA 10, explained
R v Hutchinson [2018] 3 Qd R 505; [2018] QCA 29, applied
R v JCW (2000) 112 A Crim R 466; [2000] NSWCCA 209, cited
R v Kelley [2018] QCA…

Continue reading R v Rbo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rbo [2024] QCA 214
Case
[2024] QCA 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of common assault against his wife, following a single episode of repeated pushes that caused minor injuries. The appellant was acquitted of one count of rape, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, and one count of common assault. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, primarily due to issues with the reliability of the evidence. The appellant also applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the appellant's arguments about the reliability of the evidence did not undermine the jury's ability to reach a verdict. The court held that it was not reasonably open to the jury to convict the appellant if they had reasonable doubts about the reliability of the evidence. However, the court did find that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the delay in prosecution and the nature of the offences. The court granted the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence, and subsequently allowed the appeal against the sentence, substituting a reduced sentence.

The court set aside the sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for count 4 and substituted a sentence on that count of 12 months’ imprisonment. The court also set aside the order suspending the terms of imprisonment after eight months for an operational period of 18 months and substituted an order suspending the terms of imprisonment after six months for an operational period of 12 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal sentence granted.

3. Appeal against sentence allowed, to the following extent:

(a) set aside the sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for count 4 and substitute a sentence on that count of 12 months’ imprisonment;

(b) set aside the order suspending the terms of imprisonment after eight months for an operational period of 18 months and substitute an order suspending the terms of imprisonment after six months for an operational period of 12 months.

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.