R v Smith - [2019] QCA 179

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2019] QCA 179

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, William Cody
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 302 of 2018
DC No 201 of 2018
DC No 561 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 26 October 2018 (Chowdhury DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2019

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Applegarth J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine years’ imprisonment for a malicious act with intent and three years’ imprisonment for doing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment for three summary offences including assault occasioning bodily harm – where the applicant, as part of a premeditated attack and in company, stabbed his ex-wife’s new partner in the leg multiple times causing life-threatening injuries – where the applicant’s ex-wife also sustained severe lacerations to her hand, causing permanent injuries, when she intervened – where the applicant attacked a third victim one month later by punching her in the face, after entering her home in breach of a domestic violence order – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history including violent offences – where the applicant submits that the range of seven to ten years adopted by the sentencing judge was not supported by comparable cases involving serious attacks with potentially fatal consequences – where the cases cited were not closely comparable in terms of offending, antecedents or consequences – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84, cited
R v Beer[2000] QCA 193, considered
R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, cited
R v Gatti[2018] QCA 98, considered
R v Oakes[2012] QCA 336, considered
R v O’Malley[2019] QCA 130, cited
R v Piper[2015] QCA 129, considered
R v Sprott; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2019] QCA 116, cited

COUNSEL:

D Caruana for the applicant
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Applegarth J and agree with those reasons and the order his Honour proposes.

PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons given by Applegarth J.
APPLEGARTH J: The applicant, as part of a premeditated attack, stabbed his first victim in the leg multiple times, severed an artery and left his victim with permanent injuries. The applicant’s second victim, his ex-wife, sustained grievous bodily harm to her hand as she tried to push the applicant and another attacker away from the first victim. A month after this ferocious attack, the applicant assaulted his third victim…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2019] QCA 179
Case: [2019] QCA 179
Decision Date: 10 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed following his conviction for a series of violent acts, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The trial judge had sentenced the applicant to nine years for a malicious act with intent and three years for causing grievous bodily harm, to run concurrently, as well as lesser terms for three summary offences. The applicant, having a history of violent offending, had premeditated an attack on his ex-wife’s new partner, stabbing him multiple times and causing life-threatening injuries. His ex-wife, who intervened, sustained severe lacerations that resulted in permanent injuries. A month later, the applicant punched a third victim in the face after breaching a domestic violence order. The applicant argued that the sentence range of seven to ten years was not supported by comparable cases and was excessive.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the nature of the offences, the applicant’s antecedents, and the consequences of his actions. The court considered that the cases cited by the applicant were not closely comparable in terms of the nature of the offending, antecedents, or consequences. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for the gravity of the offences committed. The court was satisfied that the sentence did not manifest any excessiveness or inadequacy.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, holding that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the applicant’s criminal history, and the injuries sustained by the victims. The decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the court’s role in ensuring that sentences are commensurate with the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of the offender. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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 Smith [2019] QCA 179
PARTIES:	R v SMITH, William Cody (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 302 of 2018 DC No 201 of 2018 DC No 561 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 26 October 2018 (Chowdhury DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	10 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2019
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Applegarth J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine years’ imprisonment for a malicious act with intent and three years’ imprisonment for doing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment for three summary offences including assault occasioning bodily harm – where the applicant, as part of a premeditated attack and in company, stabbed his ex-wife’s new partner in the leg multiple times causing life-threatening injuries – where the applicant’s ex-wife also sustained severe lacerations to her hand, causing permanent injuries, when she intervened – where the applicant attacked a third victim one month later by punching her in the face, after entering her home in breach of a domestic violence order – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history including violent offences – where the applicant submits that the range of seven to ten years adopted by the sentencing judge was not supported by comparable cases involving serious attacks with potentially fatal consequences – where the cases cited were not closely comparable in terms of offending, antecedents or consequences – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84, cited R v Beer[2000] QCA 193, considered R v Dwyer[2008] QCA 117, cited R v Gatti[2018] QCA 98, considered R v Oakes[2012] QCA 336, considered R v O’Malley[2019] QCA 130, cited R v Piper[2015] QCA 129, considered R v Sprott; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2019] QCA 116, cited
COUNSEL:	D Caruana for the applicant D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent