R v Sinnamon;ex Parte A-G (Qld) - [2002] QCA 240

[2002] QCA 240

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA

CA No 125 of 2002

THE QUEEN

VERONICA VERNA SINNAMON Respondent

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/07/2002

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The Attorney-General appeals against a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on the respondent on 21 March this year for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to her
de facto husband. She had pleaded guilty to that offence.

The respondent is a 44 year old aboriginal woman who was born and lives in a remote aboriginal community of Kowanyama in the Cape York region of far north Queensland. She has been the
de facto wife of the complainant for 18 years. The relationship has been dysfunctional and traumatic and may have been violent on both sides. I say this because it appears that there have been, and were at the time of the commission of this offence, domestic violence orders against both in respect of the other. Both the respondent and the complainant are, sadly, long term alcoholics.

The offence the subject of this appeal was committed by the respondent after both parties, and it seems some others, had been on a drinking binge for four days. The complainant had either gone to sleep or had lapsed into unconsciousness due to the effects of alcohol.

The respondent, without apparent provocation of any kind, attacked the complainant by striking him on both legs and the right hand with a steel picket. The attack caused the complainant either to wake up or revive. However, he has little memory of the attack.

He suffered a four centimetre laceration to his left knee, a 15 centimetre laceration to his right leg, displacement of the fifth finger and a cut on the index finger through the tendon and some bruising and abrasions. The injury with which she has been charged, the grievous bodily harm, relates to the finger injury and to some disability which, at least, lasted and may have been permanent. He was taken to Cairns Hospital where his injuries were treated and the prognosis was that he would not suffer any permanent disability. The parties have apparently resumed cohabitation.

This is not the first occasion on which the respondent has attacked the complainant. In 1999 she had stabbed him with a knife and hit him with a stick. For that offence of assault occasioning bodily harm she was sentenced to community service of 150 hours and 12 months probation. She had earlier, in 1997, been fined for an aggravated assault on a female. She was, as I have also mentioned, the subject of a domestic violence order at the time of commission of this offence.
It seems unlikely that the respondent will cease offending in such ways as this unless she can overcome her alcohol addiction and there is no indication that there is any reasonable prospect of this.

Mr Campbell for the Attorney referred to six matters which he quite rightly submitted were aggravating circumstances in the present…

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 Sinnamon;ex Parte A-G (Qld) 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: [2002] QCA 240
Decision Date: 03/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sinnamon; ex parte A-G (Qld), the Attorney-General appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Veronica Verna Sinnamon, for unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to her de facto husband. Sinnamon, an Aboriginal woman from a remote community, had a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse. The offence occurred during a drinking binge, where Sinnamon attacked her sleeping husband with a steel picket, causing severe injuries. The Court of Appeal found the sentence of six months imprisonment inadequate given the aggravating factors and Sinnamon's history of violence.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Sinnamon, considering the circumstances of the offence and her background. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was too lenient, given the unprovoked nature of the attack, the breach of a domestic violence order, and Sinnamon's previous convictions for violent offences. The court had to balance these aggravating factors against the impact on the complainant and Sinnamon's guilty plea. The judges also considered the unique challenges faced by Indigenous individuals in remote communities when imposing a sentence.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Davies JA, Williams JA, and Jerard JA, found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. They noted that the attack was unprovoked, the victim was vulnerable, and Sinnamon had a history of violent offences. The judges determined that a sentence of at least 18 months imprisonment was warranted but, considering the guilty plea and minimal impact on the complainant, they decided to suspend the sentence after six months, with an operational period of 18 months. The court's reasoning emphasized the importance of considering the context of the offender's life, including her background and living conditions, in sentencing decisions. The final orders were to set aside the original sentence and impose a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment, operational for 18 months after a six-month served term.

Orders