R v Renata; Ex parte - [2018] QCA 356

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Renata; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 356

PARTIES:

R
v
RENATA, Armstrong
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 266 of 2017
SC No 1663 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 13 October 2017 (Bowskill J)

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2018

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Philippides JJA and Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof, order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of nine years and six months.

3.   Further order that the respondent must not be released from imprisonment until he has served 80 per cent of this term.

4.   Declare that the pre-sentence custody from 3 January 2016 to 12 October 2017 is time served under this sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful striking causing death – where the respondent delivered an unprovoked and very forceful blow to the deceased’s jaw with a clenched first –where the deceased had his arms by his side – where the blow was delivered from out of the deceased’s sight – where the respondent was sentenced to seven years imprisonment – where it was ordered, pursuant to s 314A(5) of the Criminal Code (Qld), that the respondent must not be released until he has served 80 per cent of that term – whether the respondent’s sentence is manifestly inadequate

Criminal Code (Qld), s 314A
Safe Night Out Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld), s 14

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v George; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 450, distinguished
R v Katia; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2006] QCA 300, distinguished
R v Mayot (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Holmes CJ, 6 March 2017), distinguished
R v Skondin[2015] QCA 138, distinguished

COUNSEL:

C Heaton QC for the appellant
J J Allen QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

GOTTERSON JA: The respondent, Armstrong Renata, was charged on a single-count indictment of an offence against s 314A of the Criminal Code (Qld). The count alleged that on 5 January 2016 at Fortitude Valley, he unlawfully struck Cole Edward Miller (“the deceased”) and caused his death.
The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 26 June 2017. A sentence hearing ensued on 13 October 2017. At the conclusion of it, the respondent was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. A period of some 649 days pre-sentence custody was declared to be time served under the sentence. In compliance with s 314A(5), it was…

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 Renata; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Renata; Ex parte [2018] QCA 356
Case: [2018] QCA 356
Decision Date: 18 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Renata, appealed against her sentence after being found guilty of unlawfully striking and causing death. The Court of Appeal in Queensland was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate. Renata had pleaded guilty to delivering an unprovoked and forceful blow to the deceased’s jaw with a clenched fist, resulting in the deceased's death. The lower court had sentenced Renata to seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 80 per cent of that term.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Renata’s sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court considered the nature of the offence, the level of force used, and the impact of the offence on the deceased and their family. Additionally, the Court examined the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The Court of Appeal needed to decide if the original sentence was unjust or disproportionate in light of the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence of seven years imprisonment was manifestly inadequate. It considered the unprovoked nature of the assault, the significant force applied, and the irreversible consequences for the deceased and their family. The Court concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of nine years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 80 per cent of that term. The Court also declared that the pre-sentence custody Renata had already served should be counted towards this new sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof, order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of nine years and six months.

3. Further order that the respondent must not be released from imprisonment until he has served 80 per cent of this term.

4. Declare that the pre-sentence custody from 3 January 2016 to 12 October 2017 is time served under this sentence.

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 Renata; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 356
PARTIES:	R v RENATA, Armstrong (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 266 of 2017 SC No 1663 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 13 October 2017 (Bowskill J)
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 September 2018
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Philippides JJA and Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal. 2. Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance and in lieu thereof, order that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of nine years and six months. 3. Further order that the respondent must not be released from imprisonment until he has served 80 per cent of this term. 4. Declare that the pre-sentence custody from 3 January 2016 to 12 October 2017 is time served under this sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful striking causing death – where the respondent delivered an unprovoked and very forceful blow to the deceased’s jaw with a clenched first –where the deceased had his arms by his side – where the blow was delivered from out of the deceased’s sight – where the respondent was sentenced to seven years imprisonment – where it was ordered, pursuant to s 314A(5) of the Criminal Code (Qld), that the respondent must not be released until he has served 80 per cent of that term – whether the respondent’s sentence is manifestly inadequate Criminal Code (Qld), s 314A Safe Night Out Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld), s 14 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited R v George; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 450, distinguished R v Katia; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2006] QCA 300, distinguished R v Mayot (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Holmes CJ, 6 March 2017), distinguished R v Skondin[2015] QCA 138, distinguished
COUNSEL:	C Heaton QC for the appellant J J Allen QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent