R v Stone

Case [2010] QCA 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stone [2010] QCA 157

PARTIES:

R
v
STONE, Joshua Lee
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 50 of 2010
DC No 409 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2010

JUDGE:

Holmes and Muir JJA and McMeekin 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 is allowed.

2.    The appeal is allowed.

3.    The sentence imposed is set aside.

4.    The applicant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a parole release date set at six months.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded not guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company – where applicant convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment – where applicant aged 21 years old at the time of sentence – where applicant had no criminal history – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant’s older brother was jointly charged with the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm in company – where the co-offender pleaded guilty – where significant personal circumstances of the co-offender taken into account – where the co-offender was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment suspended after five months with an operational period of two years in relation to that charge – where both offenders had similar culpability – whether applicant’s sentence excessive when compared with the co-offender’s sentence

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(a)(i), s 9(3)(b), s 9(4)(i), s 13(1)

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited
R v Abednego [2004] QCA 377, distinguished
R v Dempsey and Perks; ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 520, distinguished
R v Fortnum& Fortnum [2006] QCA 147, considered
R v Jones; R v Hili [2010] NSWCCA 108, cited
R v Lam [2006] QCA 560, distinguished
R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79; [1998] QCA 36, cited
R v Lude; R v Love [2007] QCA 319, distinguished
R v McDonald [2005] QCA 383, considered
R v Middleton and Johns (2006) 165 A Crim R 1 ; [2006] QCA 92, discussed
R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, cited
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the applicant
A D Anderson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1]      JA: HOLMES I agree with the reasons of McMeekin J and the orders he proposes.

[2]      MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of McMeekin J and the…

Continue reading R v Stone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stone [2010] QCA 157
Case
[2010] QCA 157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stone involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant following his conviction for dangerous operation of a vehicle and assault occasioning bodily harm in company. The applicant, who had no prior criminal history, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment at the age of 21. The applicant's older brother, who was jointly charged with the assault occasioning bodily harm in company, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 15-month suspended sentence, operational for two years, following consideration of his personal circumstances. The applicant argued that the sentence imposed on him was manifestly excessive and disproportionate when compared to his brother's sentence, given that both had similar culpability.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive and whether it was appropriate to consider the parity between the sentences of co-offenders. The court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for proportionality and deterrence, and considered the personal circumstances of the applicant and his co-offender. The court also had to assess the overall culpability of both offenders and the impact of their respective sentences on the community.

The court held that the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive and disproportionate when compared to the sentence of his co-offender. The court found that the significant difference in the sentences, despite similar culpability, indicated a need for parity between co-offenders. The court allowed the appeal against the sentence, set aside the original sentence, and re-sentenced the applicant to 12 months imprisonment with a parole release date set at six months. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and parity in sentencing to ensure just outcomes for all offenders.

The court's final orders included allowing the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, allowing the appeal, setting aside the original sentence, and re-sentencing the applicant to 12 months imprisonment with a parole release date set at six months. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering parity between co-offenders in sentencing, and the need for proportionality in determining appropriate sentences for similar offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is allowed.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The sentence imposed is set aside.

4. The applicant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a parole release date set at six months.

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.