R v Rowlands - [2019] QCA 112

[2019] QCA 112

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA
PHILIPPIDES JA
RYAN J

CA No 317 of 2018
DC No 288 of 2018

THE QUEEN

ROWLANDS, Jeffrey Craig Applicant

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 10 JUNE 2019

JUDGMENT

RYAN J: The applicant was convicted after a five day trial of eight offences of violence which occurred in the course of two episodes. The victim of his offences was his then girlfriend. He was acquitted of a wilful damage offence, the damage having allegedly occurred during the second episode of violence. He was also acquitted of sexual offences allegedly committed upon the complainant.

The circumstances of the offences of violence are as follows. On 21 February 2016, the applicant and the complainant were at his property. He became enraged when she put ornaments made by his daughter into a garbage bag. The applicant screamed at the complainant. He pushed her in the chest, causing her to fall into the bathtub, hitting her head: Count 5: common assault.

He dragged her into the bedroom. He picked her up by the shoulder and slammed her down onto the concrete floor. She landed on her shoulder, causing her excruciating pain. She suffered a full thickness tear to her rotator cuff: Count 6: assault occasioning bodily harm. For weeks thereafter, she had difficulty lifting her arm and suffered considerable pain and discomfort. He smashed household items and threatened to “get rid of” her: Count 7: threatening violence.

He took the front gate key and her phone from her, and dragged her to the couch. He made her sit there, and said to her that if she kissed him, it would be okay. He kept her with him on the couch for the night: Count 8: deprivation of liberty. He ultimately let her leave the property.

About a month later, on 28 March 2016, the applicant was at his property with his daughter and the complainant. He swore at them. The complainant left the property, or attempted to, in her car, driving down a dangerous, narrow driveway. The applicant drove after her, overtook her and pulled in front of her. He then applied the brakes, which caused a minor collision between the cars: Count 9: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The complainant refused to unlock the car. The applicant attempted to smash the rear window with a wheel brace. The complainant unlocked the car, and the applicant partially entered into it to pull her out of the car and onto the ground: Count 10: unlawfully entering a motor vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence in the night with violence while armed.

He then threatened her to unlock her phone: Count 12: threatening violence. Using the wheel brace, he struck her arm and injured it: Count 11: assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. He wrapped his hand around her hair and threw her over an embankment. She was able to pull herself up, and was allowed to leave. He told her that he would kill her if…

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 Rowlands

Details

AGLC: R v Rowlands [2019] QCA 112
Case: [2019] QCA 112
Decision Date: 10 JUNE 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Rowlands, the applicant, Jeffrey Craig Rowlands, was convicted of eight offences of violence against his girlfriend, occurring during two separate episodes. Rowlands was acquitted of a wilful damage offence and sexual offences. The first incident involved Rowlands assaulting his girlfriend, pushing her into a bathtub, and slamming her to the ground, causing bodily harm. The second incident involved a dangerous pursuit in a vehicle, causing a minor collision, unlawfully entering the vehicle, threatening his girlfriend with a weapon, and striking her arm, also causing bodily harm. Rowlands had no prior criminal history. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge failed to give appropriate weight to matters in mitigation.

The Court of Appeal considered the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, noting that such an argument must demonstrate a misapplication of principle or that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The Court found that Rowlands did not provide any comparable decisions to support his argument, and that the extent to which mitigating factors warrant a reduction in penalty is a matter for the sentencing judge. The Court reviewed relevant case law and determined that a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more was within the proper sentencing range for a serious assault in a domestic setting. The Court found that the sentence actually imposed was moderate and gave appropriate weight to the principles of general and personal deterrence and community denunciation, balanced against matters personal to Rowlands.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding that there was no error in principle or an unjust penalty imposed by the sentencing judge. The Court endorsed the remark that the sentence was distinctly moderate in the circumstances, and agreed with the additional comments made by Justice Fraser.

Orders