R v Stallan - [2010] QCA 68

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stallan [2010] QCA 68

PARTIES:

R
v
STALLAN, Bronson Terrence
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 250 of 2009
DC No 364 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir JA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant and three co-offenders were found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – the applicant was also found guilty of breaking and entering premises and stealing and to contravening a requirement of a police officer by stating a false name – the applicant was sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment with an order that he be released on parole after serving a further 12 months – the applicant was armed during the assault – the applicant had a more extensive criminal history than co-offenders – whether sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the sentence imposed on his co-accused

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING PROCEDURE – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCING – GENERALLY – primary judge determined that the applicant used the initial weapon on the complainant – whether primary judge sentenced on a factual basis not reasonably open on a consideration of the evidence and the findings of the jury

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67, cited
R v Stallan[2003] QCA 62, cited

COUNSEL:

S L Kissick for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MURDO P:Mc The applicant, Bronson Terrence Stallan, pleaded not guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm with intent and to an alternative count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company. He was charged jointly with Travis Michael Douglas, Wade Morris Douglas, Craig Darren Mark Thompson and Shannon James Thompson. After a 10 day trial, the jury acquitted Craig Thompson on both counts. The jury found the remaining defendants not guilty of doing grievous bodily harm with intent, but guilty of the alternative count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company. Stallan also pleaded guilty to breaking and entering premises and stealing in June 2005 and to a summary offence of contravening a requirement of a police officer by stating a false name.

The judge sentenced Travis Douglas to 18 months imprisonment with an order that he be released on parole after six months; Wade Douglas to two years imprisonment with an order that he be released on…

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 Stallan

Details

AGLC: R v Stallan [2010] QCA 68
Case: [2010] QCA 68
Decision Date: 26 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Stallan, the applicant, along with three co-offenders, was found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company. Additionally, the applicant was found guilty of breaking and entering premises, stealing, and contravening a requirement of a police officer by stating a false name. The applicant was sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment, with an order that he be released on parole after serving a further 12 months. The applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive when compared to the sentences imposed on his co-offenders.

The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive, having regard to the sentence imposed on his co-offenders. The court considered the principles of parity between co-offenders and the circumstances of the offence. The applicant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive given the sentences received by his co-offenders. The court also considered whether the primary judge had sentenced the applicant on a factual basis not reasonably open on a consideration of the evidence and the findings of the jury, specifically whether the primary judge was correct in determining that the applicant used the initial weapon on the complainant.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the primary judge was correct in determining that the applicant used the initial weapon on the complainant. The court found that the applicant's more extensive criminal history was a relevant consideration in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the primary judge had correctly considered the principles of parity and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the primary judge had sentenced the applicant on a factual basis that was reasonably open on a consideration of the evidence and the findings of the jury.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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 Stallan [2010] QCA 68
PARTIES:	R v STALLAN, Bronson Terrence (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 250 of 2009 DC No 364 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	26 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 March 2010
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir JA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant and three co-offenders were found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – the applicant was also found guilty of breaking and entering premises and stealing and to contravening a requirement of a police officer by stating a false name – the applicant was sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment with an order that he be released on parole after serving a further 12 months – the applicant was armed during the assault – the applicant had a more extensive criminal history than co-offenders – whether sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the sentence imposed on his co-accused CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING PROCEDURE – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCING – GENERALLY – primary judge determined that the applicant used the initial weapon on the complainant – whether primary judge sentenced on a factual basis not reasonably open on a consideration of the evidence and the findings of the jury Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67, cited R v Stallan[2003] QCA 62, cited
COUNSEL:	S L Kissick for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent