R v Samson - [2014] QCA 166

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Samson [2014] QCA 166

PARTIES:

R
v
SAMSON, Ronald James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 88 of 2014
DC No 17 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.     Grant application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2.     Allow the appeal.

3.     Set aside the sentence imposed on 26 March 2014.

4.     Order that in lieu, the applicant be sentenced to six years’ imprisonment cumulative on the period of 30 days’ imprisonment he was serving when sentenced on 26 March 2014.

5.     Fix a parole eligibility date at 16 April 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant and the complainant were in a de facto relationship – where in an altercation the applicant stabbed the complainant with a piece of broken glass – where the applicant stopped, but returned to stabbing the complainant having located a knife – where the stabbing took place in front of the complainant’s daughter – where the complainant suffered 21 stab wounds – where the complainant underwent surgery to repair nerve and muscle damage to her left hand – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with no recommendation for parole – where the learned sentencing judge sentenced upon two factual errors – whether the errors materially affected the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Dancey[2013] QCA 135, cited
R v Johnson[2012] QCA 141, cited
R v Oakes[2012] QCA 336, considered
R v Presgrave[2014] QCA 105, considered

COUNSEL:

N V Weston for the applicant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and the orders he proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: On 26 March 2014 at the District Court at Cairns, the applicant, Ronald James Samson, pleaded guilty to an alternative count of having offended against s 320 of the Criminal Code (Qld) by doing grievous bodily harm to the complainant, Elizabeth Jeh-Anne Saveka, at Machans Beach on or about 22 May 2013. He had also been charged with having done grievous bodily harm to the complainant with intent to do so. The Crown accepted the plea on the lesser count in full discharge of the indictment.

The applicant was that day sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The learned sentencing judge decided against making a serious violent offence declaration. No recommendation with respect to eligibility for parole was made.

On 15 April 2014, the applicant…

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 Samson

Details

AGLC: R v Samson [2014] QCA 166
Case: [2014] QCA 166
Decision Date: 25 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Samson involved the appellant who was convicted of grievous bodily harm following an incident in which he stabbed the complainant, with whom he was in a de facto relationship, multiple times in the course of an altercation. The attack resulted in the complainant sustaining 21 stab wounds and undergoing surgery to repair nerve and muscle damage in her left hand. The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with no recommendation for parole. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive due to errors made by the sentencing judge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the two factual errors identified by the appellant. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge’s errors materially affected the sentence, rendering it manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether these errors were significant enough to warrant interference with the sentence imposed.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed made two factual errors in assessing the severity of the attack and the degree of culpability of the appellant. These errors were material and had a direct impact on the sentence imposed. The court concluded that, had the sentencing judge been correctly informed, the sentence would likely have been less severe. The court determined that the sentence of six years’ imprisonment with no parole recommendation was manifestly excessive given the circumstances and the factual inaccuracies. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the sentence set aside, and a new sentence of six years’ imprisonment, cumulative with the 30 days already served, was imposed with a parole eligibility date set for 16 April 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the sentence imposed on 26 March 2014.

4. Order that in lieu, the applicant be sentenced to six years’ imprisonment cumulative on the period of 30 days’ imprisonment he was serving when sentenced on 26 March 2014.

5. Fix a parole eligibility date at 16 April 2016.

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 Samson [2014] QCA 166
PARTIES:	R v SAMSON, Ronald James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 88 of 2014 DC No 17 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	25 July 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant application for leave to appeal against sentence. 2. Allow the appeal. 3. Set aside the sentence imposed on 26 March 2014. 4. Order that in lieu, the applicant be sentenced to six years’ imprisonment cumulative on the period of 30 days’ imprisonment he was serving when sentenced on 26 March 2014. 5. Fix a parole eligibility date at 16 April 2016.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant and the complainant were in a de facto relationship – where in an altercation the applicant stabbed the complainant with a piece of broken glass – where the applicant stopped, but returned to stabbing the complainant having located a knife – where the stabbing took place in front of the complainant’s daughter – where the complainant suffered 21 stab wounds – where the complainant underwent surgery to repair nerve and muscle damage to her left hand – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with no recommendation for parole – where the learned sentencing judge sentenced upon two factual errors – whether the errors materially affected the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Dancey[2013] QCA 135, cited R v Johnson[2012] QCA 141, cited R v Oakes[2012] QCA 336, considered R v Presgrave[2014] QCA 105, considered
COUNSEL:	N V Weston for the applicant J A Wooldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent