R v Sargeant, Price and Freier - [2005] QCA 409

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sargeant, Price & Freier [2005] QCA 409

PARTIES:

R
v
SARGEANT, Brett Sidney
(applicant)

R
v
PRICE, Joshua William Phillip
(applicant)

R
v
FREIER, Scott Aaron
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 225 of 2005
CA No 226 of 2005
CA No 227 of 2005
DC No 2987 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 October 2005

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

1. In CA No 225 of 2005 R v Sargeant and CA No 226 of 2005 R v Price in each case the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
2. In CA No 227 of 2005 R v Freier the application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal allowed to the extent of vacating the order made in respect of count 2 and substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of two years. The appeal is otherwise dismissed

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 - applicants convicted after pleas of guilty to an assortment of offences arising out of an incident at a hotel - offences comprised of an initial altercation when refused entry to the hotel and a second altercation when they returned to the premises - applicants intoxicated - four complainants involved - all complainants employees of hotel - events captured on security video - applicants contend the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive and that the primary judge failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors

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 - applicant Sargeant convicted of three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in company - sentenced on each count to two years imprisonment suspended after four months with an operational period of two years - applicant contends sentencing judge wrongly found facts as to his involvement in the offences - 24 years old at time of offence - timely plea of guilty - no criminal history - good work history - remorse shown - references tendered suggesting offending out of character - whether sentence manifestly excessive

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 - applicant Price convicted of three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in company and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm - sentenced on each count to two years imprisonment…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Sargeant, Price and Freier and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QCA 409
Decision Date: 4 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sargeant, Price and Freier, three applicants, convicted following pleas of guilty to various offences arising from incidents at a hotel, sought to appeal their respective sentences. The offences involved two altercations at the hotel, where the applicants were intoxicated and assaulted hotel employees. The events were captured on security footage. The applicants argued that the sentences imposed were excessively harsh and that the primary judge did not adequately consider the mitigating factors in their favour.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, whether the primary judge had erred in fact-finding, and whether the sentences adequately reflected the applicants' circumstances, including their timely pleas of guilty, lack of significant criminal history, good work histories, and expressions of remorse. Each applicant contended that their specific circumstances warranted a reduction in their sentences.

The court considered the relevant authorities and held that the sentences for Sargeant and Price were not manifestly excessive and did not constitute a significant error in the primary judge's assessment of the circumstances. However, the court found merit in Freier's appeal, holding that the sentence imposed for the count of grievous bodily harm and the count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company should be reconsidered. The court substituted the original sentence with a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of two years.

The court's orders included refusal of leave to appeal for Sargeant and Price, and granting of leave and vacating of the sentence for Freier, substituting it with a new sentence as specified.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 225 of 2005 R v Sargeant and CA No 226 of 2005 R v Price in each case the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

2. In CA No 227 of 2005 R v Freier the application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal allowed to the extent of vacating the order made in respect of count 2 and substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of two years. The appeal is otherwise dismissed

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 Sargeant, Price & Freier [2005] QCA 409
PARTIES:	R v SARGEANT, Brett Sidney (applicant) R v PRICE, Joshua William Phillip (applicant) R v FREIER, Scott Aaron (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 225 of 2005 CA No 226 of 2005 CA No 227 of 2005 DC No 2987 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 October 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. In CA No 225 of 2005 R v Sargeant and CA No 226 of 2005 R v Price in each case the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused 2. In CA No 227 of 2005 R v Freier the application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal allowed to the extent of vacating the order made in respect of count 2 and substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of two years. The appeal is otherwise dismissed
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 - applicants convicted after pleas of guilty to an assortment of offences arising out of an incident at a hotel - offences comprised of an initial altercation when refused entry to the hotel and a second altercation when they returned to the premises - applicants intoxicated - four complainants involved - all complainants employees of hotel - events captured on security video - applicants contend the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive and that the primary judge failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors 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 - applicant Sargeant convicted of three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in company - sentenced on each count to two years imprisonment suspended after four months with an operational period of two years - applicant contends sentencing judge wrongly found facts as to his involvement in the offences - 24 years old at time of offence - timely plea of guilty - no criminal history - good work history - remorse shown - references tendered suggesting offending out of character - whether sentence manifestly excessive 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 - applicant Price convicted of three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in company and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm - sentenced on each count to two years imprisonment…