R v Stallan - [2003] QCA 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stallan [2003] QCA 62

PARTIES:

R
v
STALLAN, Bronson Terrence
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 11 of 2003
DC No 182 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.   Appeal allowed

3.   Set aside the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge on 12 December 2002 and substitute a sentence on each count of 2 years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 6 months for an operational period of 2 years

4.   Declare that pursuant to s 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 1 day spent in pre-sentence custody between 11 December 2002 and 12 December 2002 be deemed time already served under the sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where there was a misunderstanding on the part of the sentencing judge as to the significance of a written statement of the applicant handed up by the applicant’s counsel – where misunderstanding affected the view formed by sentencing judge of the applicant’s character and remorse – whether misunderstanding amounted to an error which had an effect on the sentencing process

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins J and with the proposed orders.

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Mullins J. I agree that a misunderstanding at the time of sentencing as to the significance of Exhibit 11 led the learned sentencing judge to draw conclusions which were not reasonably open in light of all the material placed before him. I agree that in consequence the sentence should be varied, and I agree with the orders proposed by Mullins J.

MULLINS J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on 12 December 2002 when he pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in company. On each count the applicant was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 9 months for an operational period of 3 years. The ground relied on to bring the application is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The applicant did not dispute the head sentence of 2 years, but submitted that the excessiveness was in requiring him to serve 9 months before the sentence was suspended.

The applicant was charged with two co-offenders. One of them, Robert Lance Parsons, failed to appear. The other, Shannon James Thompson,…

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 [2003] QCA 62
Case: [2003] QCA 62
Decision Date: 28 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Stallan, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for three counts of indecent assault. The court was required to determine whether the misunderstanding of a written statement by the sentencing judge, which affected the view of the applicant’s character and remorse, constituted an error that impacted the sentencing process. The applicant argued that the misunderstanding was a significant error warranting the substitution of a new sentence. The court had to consider whether this error met the threshold for interference with the original sentence.

The court recognised that the sentencing judge had misunderstood the significance of the written statement provided by the applicant's counsel. This misunderstanding led to an incorrect assessment of the applicant's character and remorse, which in turn affected the severity of the sentence. The court concluded that the error was substantial enough to justify altering the sentence, as it directly influenced the sentencing judge's view of the applicant’s culpability and the appropriate punishment. The court found that the misunderstanding constituted a material error affecting the sentence.

Accordingly, the court granted the application for leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal. The original sentence was set aside, and a new sentence was substituted. The new sentence imposed was two years' imprisonment, suspended after six months, for an operational period of two years on each count. Additionally, one day spent in pre-sentence custody was deemed time already served under the new sentence. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate interpretation of submissions in sentencing and the potential consequences of such errors.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge on 12 December 2002 and substitute a sentence on each count of 2 years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 6 months for an operational period of 2 years

4. Declare that pursuant to s 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 1 day spent in pre-sentence custody between 11 December 2002 and 12 December 2002 be deemed time already served under the sentence

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 [2003] QCA 62
PARTIES:	R v STALLAN, Bronson Terrence (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 11 of 2003 DC No 182 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	28 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Set aside the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge on 12 December 2002 and substitute a sentence on each count of 2 years’ imprisonment to be suspended after 6 months for an operational period of 2 years 4. Declare that pursuant to s 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 1 day spent in pre-sentence custody between 11 December 2002 and 12 December 2002 be deemed time already served under the sentence
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where there was a misunderstanding on the part of the sentencing judge as to the significance of a written statement of the applicant handed up by the applicant’s counsel – where misunderstanding affected the view formed by sentencing judge of the applicant’s character and remorse – whether misunderstanding amounted to an error which had an effect on the sentencing process
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent