R v Stepto - [2002] QCA 10

[2002] QCA 10

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
THOMAS JA
AMBROSE J

CA No 220 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ALBERT ERNEST STEPTO

BRISBANE

..DATE 04/02/2002

JUDGMENT

AMBROSE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed upon the applicant when he pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The sentence was imposed on 10 November 1998 and the offence was committed on 26 July 1997. At the time of the imposition of the sentence the applicant was aged 60 years and had been held in custody in respect of this offence for a period of one year and 19 weeks.

The applicant had a criminal history, the most significant offence being one for arson in 1983. That offence was committed against a background of domestic disputation.

The applicant had been sharing a flat with a man he had met a short time previously. Both men were addicted to alcohol and at about 2 p.m. on the date of the offence an argument developed concerning the deceased man's failing to use money that the applicant was giving him to pay rent, to pay that money to the landlady.

The applicant had made a complaint to the landlady or had a discussion with her and she related that complaint to the deceased, who became very annoyed and the facts upon which the applicant was sentenced were that the deceased attacked him threatening to kill him and the applicant, fearing for his life, picked up a tomahawk that was lying on the floor of the flat that they occupied together and struck him on the back of the head with it on a number of occasions - between five occasions and 11 occasions.

Very significant damage was done to the deceased man, of course. There was a lot of blood left on the ceiling and walls and the floor of the unit where the deceased was killed. The applicant then made efforts to clean up the flat and himself and he took the car owned by the deceased to some hotels where he was seen and then told the investigating police officers that he had been there drinking and that somebody else, in effect, must have killed the deceased man.

Both the applicant and the deceased, as I have indicated, had endured long periods of alcoholism. The deceased's history is one of a life-long struggle - well, almost a life-long struggle - with his addiction to alcohol. The Crown, in the circumstances, accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis that the accused had overreacted to the threat to his life that he had received and that the killing was not intended to result in the death of or grievous bodily harm to the deceased and was based upon, to no small extent, I think, the fact that applicant had a significant alcohol problem of many years standing.

The learned sentencing Judge - it was a plea of guilty, I might add…

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 Stepto

Details

AGLC: R v Stepto [2002] QCA 10
Case: [2002] QCA 10
Decision Date: 04/02/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stepto, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter. The applicant, Albert Ernest Stepto, had pleaded guilty to the offence, which was committed on 26 July 1997, and was sentenced on 10 November 1998. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the fact that the sentencing judge did not consider the provisions of Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), which affects parole eligibility for certain sentences. The court also needed to decide if the sentence imposed was appropriate given the mitigating factors, including the applicant's age, criminal history, and the impact of alcoholism on his actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, as the sentencing judge did not take into account the provisions of Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act, which would have postponed the applicant's eligibility for parole until eight years of the sentence had been served. Both counsel and the sentencing judge overlooked this provision, and the court considered that the sentence was likely too high, given the comparable sentences in other cases. The Court of Appeal concluded that an appropriate sentence would have made the applicant eligible for parole after serving four and a half years. Therefore, the court granted leave to appeal, set aside the original sentence, and substituted a sentence of nine years imprisonment, which aligns with the principles outlined in R v Bojovic.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence of ten years' imprisonment, and substitute a sentence of nine years' imprisonment. This outcome ensures that the applicant will become eligible for parole after serving four and a half years, reflecting a more appropriate penalty for the offence committed.

Orders