R v Sprott; Ex parte

[2019] QCA 116

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sprott; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] QCA 116

PARTIES:

R
v
SPROTT, James Stuart
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 284 of 2018
SC No 11 of 2018
SC No 49 of 2018
SC No 77 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 8 October 2018 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Henry J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder – where the respondent was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of nine and a half years imprisonment – where the complainants were the respondent’s mother and her partner – where the learned sentencing judge considered aggravating circumstances of the offence, including that the respondent was subject to a Domestic Violence Order concerning the complainants and that the attack was premeditated – where the learned sentencing judge considered the “most relevant circumstance” of the offence to be that the respondent’s son was killed by a dog kept by the complainants whilst in their care – where the appropriate range for the offence of attempted murder is generally from 10 to 17 years imprisonment – where the learned sentencing judge considered the respondent’s case was not a “general case” – whether the learned sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to the mitigating and aggravating factors of the offence and respondent’s personal circumstances – whether a sentence below 10 years imprisonment for two counts of attempted murder is manifestly inadequate

Criminal Code (Qld), s 669A

Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lacey v Attorney-General (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513; [1950] HCA 52, cited
R v Ali[2018] QCA 212, applied
Whittaker v The King (1928) 41 CLR 230; [1928] HCA 28, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

N Rees for the appellant
F D Richards, with M A Benn, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. SOFRONOFF P:  On 11 April 2017 the respondent came home from the pub where he had been drinking.  He lived with his partner, Chantelle Ranby.  The respondent drank another three or four beers at home.  An argument started.  The respondent grabbed two stubbies of beer and left the house.  He went to a nearby takeaway food store and sat and drank.  He thought that Ms Ranby might have called the police.  Some time later…