Legal Research
Cases
R v Rowlingson

R v Rowlingson

Case [2008] QCA 395 9 December 2008

Appeal

Sentencing

Murder

Unlawful Use of a Motor Vehicle

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rowlingson [2008] QCA 395

PARTIES:

R
v
ROWLINGSON, Anthony David
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 241 of 2008
SC No 39 of 2008
SC No 1026 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2008

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of one count of murder, one count of interference with a corpse, one count of stealing and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of the offending – where the applicant's victim was his brother – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and to lesser concurrent terms for the other offences – where the learned sentencing judge ordered that the publication of the applicant's name be permitted – whether the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed was affected by any error of law

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176(3), s 234

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited

R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 432, cited
R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, considered
R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, considered
R v Twala, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, CA No 60187 of 1993, 4 November 1994, cited
R v WS[2007] QCA 207, distinguished
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

KEANE JA: On 8 August 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty to murder, interfering with a corpse, stealing and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The sentencing of the applicant was adjourned to 15 September 2008, and a pre-sentence report in relation to the applicant was ordered pursuant to s 151 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld).

On 15 September 2008 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder, and 426 days of pre-sentence custody was declared to be time served under that sentence. For the offence of interfering with a corpse, he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, for the offence of stealing he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle he was sentenced…

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 Rowlingson

Details

AGLC: R v Rowlingson [2008] QCA 395
Case: [2008] QCA 395
Decision Date: 9 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rowlingson, the applicant appealed against his sentence imposed following his conviction on his own plea for one count of murder, one count of interference with a corpse, one count of stealing and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The applicant was 16 years old at the time of the offending, and the victim was his brother. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and to lesser concurrent terms for the other offences. The learned sentencing judge also ordered that the publication of the applicant's name be permitted.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the sentence was affected by any error of law. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to his age at the time of the offending and the circumstances surrounding the murder of his brother. The applicant also contended that there was an error of law in the sentencing process.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders and the circumstances of the case. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offences committed, the applicant's age and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also found that there was no error of law in the sentencing process. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Rowlingson [2008] QCA 395

Most Recent Citation

R v SBU [2011] QCA 203

Cases Citing This Decision

Rowlingson v Parole Board Queensland [2023] QSC 253
Citation 1 (Para 10)

…ound deficits in empathy cannot reasonably be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence .” [Emphasis added] [10] R v Rowlingson [2008] QCA 395 at [45] per Keane JA.…
R v SDK [2020] QCA 269
Citation 2 (Para 28)

…atter. So I will make an order under subsection (2) of section 234 that identifying information about the offender can be published.” [13][2008] QCA 395. [14][2012] 1 Qd R 250; [2011] QCA 203.…
R v SBU [2011] QCA 203
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ned his innocence after the trial, and the psychiatric evidence justified the finding that the offender was “presumably highly dangerous”. [7][2008] QCA 395. [8][2000] 2 Qd R 659.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117
Citation 1

…LR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 432, cited R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, considered R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117, considered R v Twala , unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, CA No 60187 of 1993, 4 November 1994, cited R v WS [2007] QCA 207, distinguished Veen v The Queen (No 2)…
R v WS [2007] QCA 207
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…iod of detention of 12 to 13 years was suggested by the decision of this Court in R v WS [1] which was said to be closely comparable to this case. [1][2007] QCA 207.…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 3

…s both unattainable, and, in truth, alien to the sentencing process ( Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 624 [46]). In Markarian v The Queen ((2005) 228 CLR 357 at 371 [27]), Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said: 'Express legislative provisions apart, neither principle, nor any of the grounds of appel…
R v JJ; R v JJ; ex parte [2005] QCA 153
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…e appropriate.[9] [9] Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465. See also R v Lynch; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1995] QCA 205; R v JJ; R v JJ; ex parte A-G [2005] QCA 153 at [25].…
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15
Citation 5

…flexibility in sentencing as is consonant with consistency of approach and as accords with the statutory regime that applies ( Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616 at 618 [5]; 205 ALR 346 at 348 per Gleeson CJ; at 624, 356 [26] per Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ).'" [8][2008] QCA 117 at [37] (citations footnoted i…
R v D [1999] QCA 231
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…the absence of facts mitigating the seriousness of the crime (as distinct from the subjective features mitigating the penalty to be imposed)."[5] [3][1999] QCA 231 at [10]. [4]See also Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 451 – 452; Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 478; R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 4…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 7

…as involving the illusion of a degree of precision which is both unattainable, and, in truth, alien to the sentencing process ( Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 624 [46]). In Markarian v The Queen ((2005) 228 CLR 357 at 371 [27]), Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said: 'Express legislative provision…
R v Lynch and Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 205
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…sing a longer sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.[9] [9] Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465. See also R v Lynch; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1995] QCA 205; R v JJ; R v JJ; ex parte A-G [2005] QCA 153 at [25].…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 9

…W, CA No 60187 of 1993, 4 November 1994, cited R v WS [2007] QCA 207, distinguished Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited COUNSEL: S M Ryan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) fo…
Ibbs v the Queen [1987] HCA 46
Citation 10

…Act 1992 (Qld), s 176(3), s 234 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 432, cited R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, considered R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117, considered R v Twala , unreported, Court of Crimi…
House v R [1936] HCA 40
Citation 11

…e imposed was affected by any error of law Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176(3), s 234 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 432, cited R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, considered R v Dwyer [2008…
House v The King 63 WN 176
Citation 12

…stly excessive – whether the sentence imposed was affected by any error of law Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176(3), s 234 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 432, cited R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231,…

Legislation Cited

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) 176(3)
2 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Rowlingson [2008] QCA 395
PARTIES:	R v ROWLINGSON, Anthony David (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 241 of 2008 SC No 39 of 2008 SC No 1026 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	9 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 December 2008
JUDGES:	Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of one count of murder, one count of interference with a corpse, one count of stealing and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was 16 years old at the time of the offending – where the applicant's victim was his brother – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and to lesser concurrent terms for the other offences – where the learned sentencing judge ordered that the publication of the applicant's name be permitted – whether the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed was affected by any error of law Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 176(3), s 234 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46, cited R v Chivers [1993] 1 Qd R 432, cited R v D [2000] 2 Qd R 659; [1999] QCA 231, considered R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, considered R v Twala, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, CA No 60187 of 1993, 4 November 1994, cited R v WS[2007] QCA 207, distinguished Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent