R v Sauvao

Case [2006] QCA 331


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 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


1 September 2006

DELIVERED 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 made 

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

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, distinguished

COUNSEL:

R A East for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

Details
AGLC
R v Sauvao [2006] QCA 331
Case
[2006] QCA 331
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sauvao involved the appellant, who pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of his de facto wife and a breach of a domestic violence order. The appellant had attacked the complainant at a railway station, attempting to stab her in the heart with a knife that ultimately broke. He continued to assault her, punching and kicking her and hitting her head against a chair and pole. Bystanders intervened, preventing further harm. The appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with a declaration that he had committed a serious violent offence. The appellant sought to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the serious violent offence declaration should not have been made. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal, which was required to determine whether the declaration was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

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.