R v Stelling - [2015] QCA 57

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stelling [2015] QCA 57

PARTIES:

R
v
STELLING, Timothy Byron
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 256 of 2014
DC No 209 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 April 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Atkinson and Applegarth JJ
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 – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm and one count of serious assault – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment and 18 months’ imprisonment, with a parole release date set after nine months – where the offences occurred in a public place – where the offences were committed in company – where the offending caused serious injury to a victim – where the applicant had a previous criminal history of violent and other offending – where the applicant had a history of poor compliance with non-custodial orders – where the applicant had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for offences of violence – where the applicant was young at the time of the offences – where the applicant had taken steps to improve his life by the time of sentencing – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Barry[2004] QCA 105, considered
R v Clarke [2012] QCA 318, considered
R v Leapai [2005] QCA 449, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Atkinson J’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal against sentence.
ATKINSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court in Ipswich on 1 September 2014. On that day, he pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm (count one) and one count of serious assault (count two). On count one, he was co-accused with Nathan Dean Gillam. On that count, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and on count two, to 18 months’ imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. His parole release date was fixed at 1 June 2015, that is, after he had served nine months of the term of imprisonment.
The offences occurred on 4 May 2013. The applicant and Gillam were inside a Woolworths supermarket in a shopping centre complex just before closing time on a Saturday afternoon. A checkout assistant attempted to inspect the bags they were carrying, but they would not stop. The duty manager of the store, Benjamin Simons, was alerted and walked up 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 Stelling

Details

AGLC: R v Stelling [2015] QCA 57
Case: [2015] QCA 57
Decision Date: 17 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stelling involved an appellant who had pleaded guilty to charges of grievous bodily harm and serious assault. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with a parole release date set after nine months. The appellant had a history of criminal offending, including previous convictions for violent offences and poor compliance with non-custodial orders. Despite this, the appellant had taken steps to improve his life by the time of sentencing. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the steps taken to rehabilitate himself.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, which were committed in public and in company, causing serious injury to the victim. It also considered the appellant's history of violent offending, his poor compliance with non-custodial orders, and his previous imprisonment for violent offences. However, the court also noted the appellant's youth at the time of the offences and his efforts to improve his life. In assessing whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation against the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court recognised the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history but also acknowledged his efforts to rehabilitate. The court determined that the sentence was proportionate to the offences and appropriate given the appellant's history and potential for reform. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was 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 Stelling [2015] QCA 57
PARTIES:	R v STELLING, Timothy Byron (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 256 of 2014 DC No 209 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	17 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 April 2015
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Atkinson and Applegarth JJ 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 – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm and one count of serious assault – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment and 18 months’ imprisonment, with a parole release date set after nine months – where the offences occurred in a public place – where the offences were committed in company – where the offending caused serious injury to a victim – where the applicant had a previous criminal history of violent and other offending – where the applicant had a history of poor compliance with non-custodial orders – where the applicant had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for offences of violence – where the applicant was young at the time of the offences – where the applicant had taken steps to improve his life by the time of sentencing – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Barry[2004] QCA 105, considered R v Clarke [2012] QCA 318, considered R v Leapai [2005] QCA 449, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent