R v Tahir; Ex parte

Case [2013] QCA 294

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tahir; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] QCA 294

PARTIES:

R
v
TAHIR, Mohammed Tasleem
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 297 of 2012
DC No 374 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 July 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal.

2.   Vary the sentence and orders made in the District Court by substituting the following orders:

a.    The respondent is sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

b.   Declare that the respondent is convicted of a serious violent offence.

c.    Declare that 703 days of pre-sentence custody, from 13 November 2010 to 16 October 2012 be deemed time served under the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm – where the respondent was sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving one third of the term of imprisonment – where the complainant suffered severe physical and psychological injuries as a result of the offending – where the respondent had no prior conviction for offences of violence – where the respondent’s remorse, young age, attempted rehabilitation and favourable references were taken into account by the sentencing judge – where the appellant contended that the sentencing judge erred in failing to declare that the respondent be convicted of a serious violent offence – where the appellant otherwise argued that the term of imprisonment was within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion – whether the failure to make a declaration reflected an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184(2), s 192
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4), s 161B(3)(b)

Elias v The Queen; Issa v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 637; [2013] HCA 31, cited
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588; [1995] QCA 80, cited
R v Bryan; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, considered
R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415; [1993] QCA 417, cited
R v Daley [1999] QCA 332, considered
R v Daly (2004) 147 A Crim R 440; [2004] QCA 385, cited
R v DeSalvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, considered
R v King & Morgan; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2002) 134 A Crim R 215; [2002] QCA 376

Continue reading R v Tahir; Ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tahir; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] QCA 294
Case
[2013] QCA 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Tahir, was convicted of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving one third of the term. The complainant suffered severe physical and psychological injuries as a result of the offending. The sentencing judge took into account the respondent’s lack of prior convictions for violent offences, his remorse, young age, attempted rehabilitation and favourable references. The appellant, acting on behalf of the respondent, argued that the sentencing judge erred in failing to declare that the respondent be convicted of a serious violent offence, and contended that the term of imprisonment was within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.

The court considered whether the failure to make a declaration reflected an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in not declaring that the respondent was convicted of a serious violent offence and that the term of imprisonment was manifestly inadequate. The court concluded that the failure to make the declaration was an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence and orders made in the District Court by substituting the following orders: (a) The respondent is sentenced to seven years imprisonment; (b) Declare that the respondent is convicted of a serious violent offence; and (c) Declare that 703 days of pre-sentence custody, from 13 November 2010 to 16 October 2012 be deemed time served under the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Vary the sentence and orders made in the District Court by substituting the following orders:

a. The respondent is sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

b. Declare that the respondent is convicted of a serious violent offence.

c. Declare that 703 days of pre-sentence custody, from 13 November 2010 to 16 October 2012 be deemed time 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.