R v Rhode - [2001] QCA 328

[2001] QCA 328

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
BYRNE J

CA No 185 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JASON PAUL RHODE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/08/2001

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 9 July this year to the offences of attempted arson, entering a dwelling house with intent with a circumstance of aggravation and assault occasioning bodily harm. These all occurred on 26 January this year.

On the same day on which he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years in respect of the attempted arson, 18 months in respect of the offence of entering a dwelling house with intent with a circumstance of aggravation and 12 months' imprisonment for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. Each of the sentences were suspended after serving six months' imprisonment with an operational period of three years.

The applicant is 29 years of age, having been born on 27 April 1972. He has a small and quite old criminal history, his only prior offences having occurred in 1991. They were offences of stealing and permitting his place to be used for the possession of a dangerous drug in February of that year, for which he was given probation for one year, and an offence of breach of that probation in April of that year for which he was fined.

On the night on which these offences were committed, the complainant and the applicant had been drinking together with others in the applicant's house. The applicant went to sleep on the verandah of the house. He was woken by his wife who told him that she had come upon the complainant sniffing at the anus of the applicant's six year old daughter. The applicant then ordered the complainant out of the house and the complainant left. He walked home. That was about two o'clock in the morning.

The applicant apparently resolved to go to the complainant's house and assault him. He then went in company with another to the complainant's house, entered the house uninvited, and assaulted the complainant by punching him a large number of times. The estimates are varied between 10 and 30 blows. In either case, it involved serious violence, including apparently holding the complainant by the hair with one hand, while punching him in the head with the other.

He was ultimately pulled away by the complainant's house mates. He admitted afterwards that his companion had warned him not to do this, but he did it anyway.

Shortly afterwards he was interviewed by police at his home. He admitted that he had given the complainant a bit of a "touch up", as he put it, and told the police why. When told by police not to go anywhere near the complainant again, the applicant replied, "Next time you see him, he will be burning," and started laughing. He was again warned not to do anything stupid.

He then assembled four petrol bombs using glass bottles, petrol, rags and returned…

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 Rhode

Details

AGLC: R v Rhode [2001] QCA 328
Case: [2001] QCA 328
Decision Date: 13/08/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Jason Paul Rhode, was convicted in the District Court for attempted arson, entering a dwelling house with intent, and assault occasioning bodily harm. The crimes were committed on January 26, 2001, against a complainant who had allegedly engaged in inappropriate behavior towards Rhode's daughter. Rhode was sentenced to a total of five years imprisonment, with each sentence suspended after six months and an operational period of three years. Rhode appealed the sentence in the Queensland Court of Appeal, arguing that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were manifestly excessive, and if the appeal should be allowed. The Court considered the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of Rhode, including his stable relationship, family, and work history. The Court also considered the nature of the offenses, which involved vigilantism and the use of molotov cocktails, and the need to discourage such conduct.

The Court held that the sentences were appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The Court considered the seriousness of the offenses, which involved vigilante-style action and the use of molotov cocktails, and the need for deterrence. The Court also considered Rhode's personal circumstances, but ultimately found that the sentences were appropriate given the nature of the offenses. The Court noted that people who use someone else's alleged sexual transgression as a pretext for massive retaliation deserve strong deterrents, and that if conduct of this kind is not strongly discouraged, private trial and punishment will become a prevalent feature of life.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The Court held that the sentences were appropriate and not manifestly excessive, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The Court noted that while the sentences were lenient, they were still appropriate given the nature of the offenses and the need for deterrence.

Orders