R v. Richwood - [2007] QCA 201

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Richwood [2007] QCA 201

PARTIES:

R
v
RICHWOOD, Jonathon
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 64 of 2007
DC No 93 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2007

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted
2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of deleting the declaration as to time spent in pre-sentence custody and substituting the following: “The applicant was held in pre-sentence custody between 24 April 2005 and 2 November 2005 and between 2 May 2006 and 16 March 2007, a period of 510 days, which is declared imprisonment already served under the sentences imposed”

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of offences including assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, disabling with intent, wilful damage, attempting to destroy property by explosives, attempting to injure by explosives, and extortion with a circumstance of aggravation – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the extortion charge – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years on each of the attempting to destroy property by explosives and attempt to injure by explosive counts, with a declaration of a serious violent offence in respect of the latter, and six years in respect of each of the assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and disabling with intent counts, both with serious violent offence declarations – whether there was sufficient basis for the making of the serious violent offence declarations

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld)

R v Andrews[1997] QCA 304; CA No 209 of 1997, 7 August 1997, considered
R v Chapman [2004] QCA 177; CA No 71 of 2004, 28 May 2004, considered
R v Drinkwater [2006] QCA 82; CA No 216 of 2005, 22 March 2006, considered
R v El-Masri [2003] QCA 52; CA No 360 of 2002, 19 February 2003, considered
R v Green, Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Shanahan DCJ, 2 March 2007, considered
R v Stratton [1992] QCA 102; CA No 298 of 1991, 13 May 1992, considered

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan for the applicant/appellant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: I agree with Holmes JA.

HOLMES JA: The applicant, Jonathon Richwood, pleaded guilty to a number of offences: assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, disabling with intent, wilful damage, attempting to destroy property by explosives, attempt to injure by explosives, extortion with a circumstance of…

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. Richwood

Details

AGLC: R v Richwood [2007] QCA 201
Case: [2007] QCA 201
Decision Date: 15 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Richwood, had pleaded guilty to a series of serious offences, including assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, disabling with intent, wilful damage, attempting to destroy property by explosives, attempting to injure by explosives, and extortion with an aggravating circumstance. Richwood was sentenced to a total of 29 years imprisonment, with various declarations attached to the sentences. Richwood appealed against his sentence, arguing that the declarations were not justified and should be removed. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the serious violent offence declarations were appropriate, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed.

The court examined the legal principles governing the imposition of serious violent offence declarations and the criteria for making such declarations. It considered the principles set out in relevant case law and statutory provisions. The court also had to evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of Richwood's crimes to determine if the declarations were justified. This involved assessing the severity and violent nature of the offences, as well as the impact on the victims.

The court found that while the sentences were appropriate, the declarations as to the time spent in pre-sentence custody were not justified. The court concluded that the serious violent offence declarations were warranted given the nature of the offences committed by Richwood. However, the court determined that the specific wording of the declarations regarding the time spent in pre-sentence custody was not in accordance with the statutory provisions and should be amended. The appeal was allowed to the extent of deleting the declaration as to time spent in pre-sentence custody and substituting the correct wording.

The court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal only to the extent of deleting the declaration as to time spent in pre-sentence custody and substituting the following: “The applicant was held in pre-sentence custody between 24 April 2005 and 2 November 2005 and between 2 May 2006 and 16 March 2007, a period of 510 days, which is declared imprisonment already served under the sentences imposed.” The rest of the sentences and declarations were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of deleting the declaration as to time spent in pre-sentence custody and substituting the following: “The applicant was held in pre-sentence custody between 24 April 2005 and 2 November 2005 and between 2 May 2006 and 16 March 2007, a period of 510 days, which is declared imprisonment already served under the sentences imposed”

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 Richwood [2007] QCA 201
PARTIES:	R v RICHWOOD, Jonathon (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 64 of 2007 DC No 93 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	15 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 June 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of deleting the declaration as to time spent in pre-sentence custody and substituting the following: “The applicant was held in pre-sentence custody between 24 April 2005 and 2 November 2005 and between 2 May 2006 and 16 March 2007, a period of 510 days, which is declared imprisonment already served under the sentences imposed”
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of offences including assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, disabling with intent, wilful damage, attempting to destroy property by explosives, attempting to injure by explosives, and extortion with a circumstance of aggravation – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the extortion charge – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years on each of the attempting to destroy property by explosives and attempt to injure by explosive counts, with a declaration of a serious violent offence in respect of the latter, and six years in respect of each of the assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and disabling with intent counts, both with serious violent offence declarations – whether there was sufficient basis for the making of the serious violent offence declarations Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) R v Andrews[1997] QCA 304; CA No 209 of 1997, 7 August 1997, considered R v Chapman [2004] QCA 177; CA No 71 of 2004, 28 May 2004, considered R v Drinkwater [2006] QCA 82; CA No 216 of 2005, 22 March 2006, considered R v El-Masri [2003] QCA 52; CA No 360 of 2002, 19 February 2003, considered R v Green, Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Shanahan DCJ, 2 March 2007, considered R v Stratton [1992] QCA 102; CA No 298 of 1991, 13 May 1992, considered
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan for the applicant/appellant M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent