R v Steensen - [2003] QCA 490

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Steensen [2003] QCA 490
PARTIES: R v STEENSEN, Michael Lenard
FILE NO/S: CA No 201 of 2003 SC No 108 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX 7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 November 2003
JUDGES: McPherson JA, and Chesterman and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT – OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – whether
declaration of serious violent offence made sentence
manifestly excessive
COUNSEL: C Callaghan (Solicitor) for the applicant
M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

McPHERSON JA: The appellant was indicted on a charge of attempting to murder Robert Crossley (count 1) or in the alternative of wounding him with intent to do grievous bodily

harm (count 2) and of wounding Daniel Patullo (count 3).He be sentenced on counts 2 and 3 to which he had pleaded guilty.

pleaded guilty at the beginning of the trial to counts 2 and 3
but went to trial on count 1 (attempting to murder Crossley).

His Honour sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for five years on count 2 with a declaration that it involved a serious violent offence and to a concurrent term of 12 months on count 3. The effect of the declaration is that the appellant will not be eligible for parole until he has served 80 per cent of the five year sentence as against two and a half years if no such declaration had been made. A period of 74 days in presentence custody was declared to have been served under those sentences.

The evidence at the trial was that on the evening of 30th Beach, North Queensland, where he lived. The security guard Mr Patulla (the victim in count 3) refused him entry because he was drunk. The appellant became aggressive saying he knew how to handle security guards, but a companion pulled him away. Crossley (the victim in count 2) came over to support Patulla. The appellant said he knew where Crossley lived and was going to get him. He then caught a taxi home informing the driver that he had a bad time with a bouncer and would "fix him up".

He went into his house and obtained a knife with a 20 centimetre blade and then drove back to the club in his own car arriving about half an hour later. After looking for the two complainants he drove off, parked and returned on foot. He approached Crossley from behind and stabbed him in the shoulder. When Crossley fell down he made two more stabbing lunges at him. Patulla intervened and was cut in the arm in the course of trying to protect himself from being stabbed in the chest. Crossley…

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 Steensen

Details

AGLC: R v Steensen [2003] QCA 490
Case: [2003] QCA 490
Decision Date: 7/11/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Steensen, the dispute was centred around the application of sentencing principles and the appropriate penalty for the offence committed. The case was heard and determined by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in sentencing the appellant, Steensen, for a criminal offence. This involved a review of the trial judge's consideration of various mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as the proportionality of the sentence imposed.

The court was required to consider whether the trial judge had erred in their application of sentencing principles. This encompassed an analysis of whether the trial judge had given adequate weight to the mitigating factors presented and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge had adhered to the relevant legal framework and statutory guidelines in determining the sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in their exercise of discretion. The reasoning provided by the trial judge was thorough and the sentence imposed was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors and had applied the relevant sentencing principles correctly. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed, affirming the original sentence as fair and just.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Steensen [2003] QCA 490
PARTIES:	R v STEENSEN, Michael Lenard
FILE NO/S:	CA No 201 of 2003 SC No 108 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX	7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, and Chesterman and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT – OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – whether
declaration of serious violent offence made sentence manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	C Callaghan (Solicitor) for the applicant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent