R v Spies - [2018] QCA 36

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Spies [2018] QCA 36

PARTIES:

R
v
SPIES, Brett Steven
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 349 of 2016
DC No 100 of 2016
DC No 106 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Sentence: 1 December 2016 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

16 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Boddice J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm, one count of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure and one count of torture – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure charge, six years imprisonment on the torture charge and not further punished, but with a conviction recorded, on the grievous bodily harm charge – where the torture and grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure charges were declared to be serious violent offences – where the sentences were imposed cumulatively – whether the sentences are manifestly excessive and/or the learned sentencing judge erred in imposing the sentences cumulatively

Criminal Code (Qld), s 16, s 317, s 320A

Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, considered
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, followed
R v Cowie [2005] 2 Qd R 533; [2005] QCA 223, discussed
R v Heiser & Cook; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1997] QCA 14, discussed
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, considered
R v Roelandts (2002) 131 A Crim R 590; [2002] QCA 254, discussed
R v Williams[2002] QCA 142, distinguished
R v Woodman[2009] QCA 197, distinguished

COUNSEL:

L D Reece for the applicant
J Robson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: On 26 March 2015, Victor Charles Christie, a 29 year old man, appeared at the Emergency Department of the Bundaberg Base Hospital. He had burns on his back, left arm, both legs and his genitals. Some of these were deep. Some of them were infected. His jaw had been fractured and dislocated. He had a subdural haematoma in the parietal lobe. His right frontal lobe was bleeding. His nose was broken. The violence to his head left him with a permanent brain injury. He would require physiotherapy to achieve independent movement.
Mr Christie had no memory about what had happened to him and he had no idea who had caused these injuries or why.
Police began to investigate and these investigations led them 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 Spies

Details

AGLC: R v Spies [2018] QCA 36
Case: [2018] QCA 36
Decision Date: 16 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, [A], appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of [State] following his guilty plea to charges of grievous bodily harm, grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure, and torture. The Supreme Court found that the grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure charge and the torture charge were serious violent offences and imposed sentences of 10 years and six years respectively, to be served cumulatively, while recording a conviction without further punishment on the grievous bodily harm charge. The applicant contended that the sentences were manifestly excessive and/or that the sentencing judge erred in imposing them cumulatively.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and/or whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing the sentences cumulatively. The applicant argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive, given the non-fatal nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. The applicant also submitted that the cumulative sentences were inappropriate, as the grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure and torture charges were part of a single course of conduct.

The court examined the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the injuries inflicted, the nature of the offences, and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge did not err in imposing them cumulatively. The court recognised the gravity of the offences and the need for an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes. The court also noted that the sentences were within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the respective offences and that there was no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Spies [2018] QCA 36
PARTIES:	R v SPIES, Brett Steven (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 349 of 2016 DC No 100 of 2016 DC No 106 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg – Date of Sentence: 1 December 2016 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	16 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 September 2017
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Boddice J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm, one count of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure and one count of torture – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure charge, six years imprisonment on the torture charge and not further punished, but with a conviction recorded, on the grievous bodily harm charge – where the torture and grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure charges were declared to be serious violent offences – where the sentences were imposed cumulatively – whether the sentences are manifestly excessive and/or the learned sentencing judge erred in imposing the sentences cumulatively Criminal Code (Qld), s 16, s 317, s 320A Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, considered Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, followed R v Cowie [2005] 2 Qd R 533; [2005] QCA 223, discussed R v Heiser & Cook; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1997] QCA 14, discussed R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, considered R v Roelandts (2002) 131 A Crim R 590; [2002] QCA 254, discussed R v Williams[2002] QCA 142, distinguished R v Woodman[2009] QCA 197, distinguished
COUNSEL:	L D Reece for the applicant J Robson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent