SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Sauvao [2006] QCA 331
PARTIES:
R
v
SAUVAO, Solomona Monty
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 145 of 2006
SC No 53 of 2006
SC No 246 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
1 September 2006DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
1 September 2006
JUDGES:
McPherson and Holmes JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
2. Substitute a sentence of nine years imprisonment without a serious violent offence declaration
3. The 366 days of pre-sentence custody is declaredCATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – where applicant pleaded guilty to attempted murder of de facto wife and breach of domestic violence order – where sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with serious violent offence declaration – where he attempted to stab complainant in the heart but knife broke – where he continued to punch and kick her and hit her head against chair and pole – where bystanders at railway station intervened – where applicant provided full account to police including intention to kill complainant – whether declaration of serious violent offence should have been made
R v Bojovic[1999] QCA 206; (2000) 2 Qd R 183, applied
R v Forster[2002] QCA 495; CA No 10 of 2002, 14 November 2002, considered
R v Jurcic[2001] QCA 390; CA No 87 of 2001, 21 September 2001, considered
R v Kerwin[2005] QCA 259; CA No 421 of 2004, 26 July 2005, distinguished
R v Lester[2004] QCA 34; CA No 325 of 2003, 20 February 2004, distinguished
R v Rochester; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 326; CA No 362 of 2002 and CA No 399 of 2002, 1 August 2003, distinguishedCOUNSEL:
R A East for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
HOLMES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of his de facto wife and to a breach of a domestic violence protection order. He seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of nine years imprisonment with a serious violence offence declaration in respect of the attempted murder.
The applicant and the complainant had lived together, on and off for about four years, and they had three small children. In 2003, the complainant obtained an apprehended violence order against the applicant in New South Wales and, moving to Queensland, had the order registered here, but they still had a good deal to do with each other because of their children.
On 22nd of May 2005 they and the children spent some time…
Continue reading R v Sauvao
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sauvao [2006] QCA 331
- Case
- [2006] QCA 331
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court of appeal considered the appellant's argument that the declaration of a serious violent offence was not warranted. The court examined the nature and severity of the assault, the appellant's intent to kill, and the impact on the victim. The court also considered the statutory criteria for making such a declaration and whether they were met in this case. The court determined that while the attack was severe, the declaration was not appropriate given the specific circumstances, including the fact that the knife broke and the intervention of bystanders. The court found that the declaration did not accurately reflect the nature of the offence and the appellant's conduct.
As a result of the appeal, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court substituted a sentence of nine years imprisonment without a serious violent offence declaration. The court also declared that the 366 days of pre-sentence custody should be counted towards the sentence. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accurately reflecting the nature of the offence in sentencing and the appropriate use of serious violent offence declarations. The final orders of the court were to allow the application for leave to appeal, substitute the sentence, and declare the pre-sentence custody period.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
2. Substitute a sentence of nine years imprisonment without a serious violent offence declaration
3. The 366 days of pre-sentence custody is declared
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.