R v Sambo - [2000] QCA 191

[2000] QCA 191

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
MUIR J

CA No 422 of 1999

THE QUEEN

ANDERSON JOHN SAMBO Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/05/2000

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: At a time when he was 37 years old, the applicant committed four offences upon his de facto wife. He was convicted of the offences of rape and deprivation of liberty by a jury following a trial and pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm.

He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for the rape, three years for the assault occasioning bodily harm which involved his being armed with a knife and a broom handle, two years for assault occasioning bodily harm and one year for deprivation of liberty.

The learned Judge declared that he had been convicted of a serious violent offence in respect of the rape. The essential point advanced now on his behalf is that the nine year sentence with the declaration renders the result manifestly excessive.

Accepting, for argument at least, that the declaration was warranted, Mr Devereaux submitted that a sentence of seven years would have been more appropriate. I take the view that the declaration was warranted. While drunk, the applicant took the complainant into their house, she having been on her way to the hospital, assaulted her with a metal broomstick which broke in the course of the assault, and as well, lacerated her with a bone handled knife and then raped her. She suffered substantial physical injuries.

The applicant conceded to the police that he had given her, as he put it, a flogging. The sentencing Judge described it as a savage beating. It is important, I think, to repeat the sentencing Judge's description of the injuries:

"Amongst other injuries, she had an eight centimetre full thickness laceration of the right cheek requiring sutures. The cut was right through to the muscle. There was multiple bruising to the knees. The doctor thought the injuries to the right cheek had possibly been caused by a knife. There were lacerations to the scalp. There was multiple bruising around the eyes and the right side of the jaw. The doctor considered a lot of force was required and that several punches would have been necessary. She had a puncture wound and multiple bruising to the right breast. Considerable force was required for that injury. There was multiple bruising to both arms. There was a large bruise to the left thorax below the left breast. There was large grazing and bruising on the back. The doctor thought that the victim may have been dragged along and thought considerable force was used. There were bruises and grazing to the left side. There was a superficial laceration to the left thigh and lacerations to the fingertips."

The applicant pleaded guilty, as I have said, to the assaults, and it is asserted, without contradiction, that the Crown case on those counts was overwhelming.

The Judge described the applicant's going to trial on the rape…

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 Sambo

Details

AGLC: R v Sambo [2000] QCA 191
Case: [2000] QCA 191
Decision Date: 24/05/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in this case heard an appeal against sentence by Anderson John Sambo, who was convicted of rape, deprivation of liberty, and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for the rape, three years for the first assault occasioning bodily harm, two years for the second assault occasioning bodily harm, and one year for deprivation of liberty. The applicant argued that the sentence, particularly the nine-year term with a declaration, was manifestly excessive. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was oppressive due to the declaration and whether it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to seven years. The court considered the severity of the crimes, the applicant's criminal history, and the lack of remorse shown by the applicant. The court ultimately found that the nine-year term, including the declaration, was justified and not manifestly excessive, given the brutal nature of the attacks and the applicant's extensive criminal history. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders