R v Simpson - [2019] QCA 205

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simpson [2019] QCA 205

PARTIES:

R
v
SIMPSON, Shane Arthur
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 60 of 2019
SC No 293 of 2019
SC No 250 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 7 March 2019 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Crow J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter committed against his biological son who had just turned two years of age – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where the applicant drove his son to a park near the Logan River and then deliberately abandoned him in the park – where there was no reported sign of the son having been seen alive again – where the applicant continued to lie about the whereabouts of his son for 10 years – where the applicant then confessed to his son’s death some 10 years later – where the applicant contended on appeal that this case fell within the middle range in terms of seriousness of offending – where the applicant also contended on appeal that the learned sentencing judge did not state what discount was given for his confession and plea of guilty – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Chard; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 372, discussed
R v JV [2014] QCA 351, discussed
R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, discussed
R v Riseley; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 285, discussed
R v Smith[2019] QCA 33, discussed

COUNSEL:

J W Fenton for the applicant
C W Heaton QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fuller & White Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: The applicant, Shane Arthur Simpson, was charged with an offence of manslaughter against s 303(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld). The count on which he was indicted alleged that he unlawfully killed Baden Bond on a date unknown between 1 and 16 May 2007 at Eagleby. The deceased child had just turned two years of age. The applicant and his partner, Dina Colleen Bond, were his biological parents. By the same indictment, Ms Bond was charged with offending against s 544 of the Code by assisting the applicant whom she knew to be guilty of a crime, to escape punishment.
At a sentence hearing held on 4 March 2019 in the Supreme Court at Brisbane, both the applicant and Ms Bond pleaded guilty to these offences. At the same time, the applicant also pleaded guilty to…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2019] QCA 205
Case: [2019] QCA 205
Decision Date: 4 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Simpson involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his biological son, who had just turned two years of age. The applicant drove his son to a park near the Logan River and abandoned him there. The child was never seen alive again, and the applicant lied about his son's whereabouts for ten years before confessing to the crime. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to twelve years in prison. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant contended that the case fell within the middle range in terms of the seriousness of the offending, and that the learned sentencing judge did not adequately explain what discount, if any, was given for the applicant's confession and plea of guilty. The court was required to examine the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the principles governing sentencing to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court found that the circumstances of the case, including the deliberate abandonment of a young child and the prolonged concealment of the crime, demonstrated a high level of culpability. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court further found that the learned sentencing judge had adequately considered the applicant's confession and plea of guilty, and that any discount given was properly reflected in the sentence.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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 Simpson [2019] QCA 205
PARTIES:	R v SIMPSON, Shane Arthur (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 60 of 2019 SC No 293 of 2019 SC No 250 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 7 March 2019 (Applegarth J)
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 September 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Crow J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter committed against his biological son who had just turned two years of age – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where the applicant drove his son to a park near the Logan River and then deliberately abandoned him in the park – where there was no reported sign of the son having been seen alive again – where the applicant continued to lie about the whereabouts of his son for 10 years – where the applicant then confessed to his son’s death some 10 years later – where the applicant contended on appeal that this case fell within the middle range in terms of seriousness of offending – where the applicant also contended on appeal that the learned sentencing judge did not state what discount was given for his confession and plea of guilty – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Chard; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 372, discussed R v JV [2014] QCA 351, discussed R v Randall[2019] QCA 25, discussed R v Riseley; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 285, discussed R v Smith[2019] QCA 33, discussed
COUNSEL:	J W Fenton for the applicant C W Heaton QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fuller & White Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent