R v Smith

[2022] QCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2022] QCA 55

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Matt
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 37 of 2021
DC No 1735 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 4 February 2021 (East QC ADCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2022

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison and Bond JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal 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 two offences of rape – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for count 2 and eight years imprisonment for count 3 – where the applicant seeks to challenge the sentences imposed on the grounds the sentences are manifestly excessive and the applicant did not get the opportunity to present psychiatric records to the Court – where the offending was subject of an agreed schedule of facts – where the learned sentencing Judge considered a psychological report tendered by counsel – whether the applicant satisfied the tests to establish that the sentences are manifestly excessive – whether the sentences are appropriate or the sentences are manifestly excessive

R v Eaton[2019] QCA 147, followed
R v Kahu[2006] QCA 413, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
A Nikolic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

2. MORRISON JA:  The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences of rape, perpetrated on the same complainant.  Both offences occurred in the same set of circumstances on 25 January 2020.

3. The applicant was sentenced as follows:

   (a)Count 2 – imprisonment for three years;

   (b)Count 3 – imprisonment for eight years.

4. No parole eligibility date was set.  A total of 343 days spent in pre-sentence custody was declared to be time served under the sentences.

5. The applicant now seeks to challenge the sentences imposed upon him on two grounds, namely the sentences are manifestly excessive, and that the applicant did not get the opportunity to present psychiatric records to the Court.

6. The offending conduct was the subject of an agreed schedule of facts.[1]  They revealed that the applicant was 37 years old at the time of the offences and the complainant (G) was 21.  The applicant and G were unknown to each other and met only on the night of the offences.

   [1]AB49.

7. On the evening of 24 January 2020 G travelled from Beenleigh to Burpengary by train, arriving at the Burpengary train station at about 12.20 am.

8. She got off the train and walked towards her car which was parked on a corner a few hundred metres from the train station.  At the time, G was staying at a youth…