R v Smith

Case [2016] QCA 9


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2016] QCA 9

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Gavin Lee
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 99 of 2015
DC No 28 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland at Mt Isa – Date of Sentence: 29 April 2015

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2015

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

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 grievous bodily harm on 27 April 2015 at the District Court at Mt Isa – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility fixed at 26 October 2017 – where the applicant brought an application for leave to appeal sentence – where the sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where it was submitted that the learned sentencing judge sentenced the applicant on an incorrect factual basis as a result of an inconsistency between the admitted victim impact statement and medical information contained in the statement of facts, thereby falling into error – where it was put that the learned sentencing judge attributed too much weight to the applicant’s history of offending – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 320
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 15(1)

R v Aplin[2014] QCA 332, applied
R v Castle; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 276, considered
R v Neal[2012] QCA 12, considered
R v Smith[2008] QCA 133, considered
R v Tahir; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 294, applied

COUNSEL:

H Walters for the applicant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Arthur Brown & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. GOTTERSON JA: On 27 April 2015 at the District Court at Mt Isa, the applicant, Gavin Lee Smith, pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm charged on indictment. The indictment alleged that on 2 August, 2014 at Mt Isa, the applicant unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to the complainant in contravention of section 320 of the Criminal Code (Qld) (Code).[1]

    [1]ARB1-2.

  2. On 29 April 2015 the applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility after two and a half years.[2]  The learned sentencing judge declared four days spent in pre-sentence custody from 2 August 2014 to 4 August 2014 as imprisonment served under the sentence.[3]  Eligibility for parole was fixed at 26 October 2017.[4]

    [2]ARB23.

    [3]ARB23.

    [4]ARB23.

  3. A Schedule of Facts was tendered without objection at the sentence hearing.[5]  The facts set out in paragraphs 4 to 23 of these reasons are…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2016] QCA 9
Case
[2016] QCA 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application for leave to appeal by the applicant, Smith, against a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility set for 26 October 2017. Smith had pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm on 27 April 2015 at the District Court at Mt Isa. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, as claimed by Smith. The applicant argued that the learned sentencing judge had sentenced him on an incorrect factual basis due to an inconsistency between the admitted victim impact statement and the medical information contained in the statement of facts. Additionally, Smith contended that the learned sentencing judge attributed too much weight to his history of offending, leading to an error in the sentencing process.

The court considered the arguments presented by Smith, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. It evaluated the consistency of the factual basis for the sentence and the weight given to Smith’s history of offending. The court noted that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the circumstances of the offence and Smith’s background in determining the sentence. After a thorough review, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found no significant error in the sentencing process and rejected the argument that the weight attributed to Smith's history of offending was inappropriate. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The court's decision was based on its assessment that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. It upheld the original sentence and did not find sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal. Therefore, the court's final order was to refuse leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.