R v Taylor - [2000] QCA 311

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Taylor [2000] QCA 311

PARTIES: R
v
TAYLOR, Jason Wade
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 139 of 2000
DC No 323 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON: 4 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 24 July 2000

JUDGES: Davies and Thomas JJA, Mullins J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Sentence imposed on 18 May 2000 suspended forthwith.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – application for leave to appeal against sentence - conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences 1992 (Qld), s 9(4)

R v Anlezark [1999] QCA 380, CA No 207 of 1999, 9 September 1999, discussed
R v Bean [1999] QCA 359, CA No 95 of 1999, 26 August 1999, considered
R v Ward CA No 245 of 1998, 18 September 1998, discussed

COUNSEL: A J Kimmins for the applicant/appellant
L J Clare for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Herdlaw for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court at Ipswich on 18 May 2000.

The applicant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment to be suspended after three months with an operational period of three years.

The assault occurred on 26 December 1998. At the date of the assault the applicant and the complainant had been in a relationship for some 17 months and they lived together for the last two of those months. Their relationship ended on the day of the assault.

The applicant was born on 14 January 1975. He was therefore 23 years old at the date of the offence. The complainant was a similar age.

On the day of the offence, the applicant and the complainant had been to a shop and were walking together. An argument developed. The complainant indicated that she was thinking of moving back with her parents, because her father did not think much of the applicant's assaulting her. (The relationship had been a tumultuous one with violence from each of the applicant and the complainant towards the other during the course of the relationship.)

The applicant threw a pie at the complainant and the complainant threw Coca Cola at the applicant. The applicant then pushed the complainant to the ground. Other people came along and the applicant helped the complainant to her feet. The applicant then embraced her to comfort her. The complainant then attempted to get away from the applicant's embrace and bit him on…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2000] QCA 311
Case: [2000] QCA 311
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on Taylor by the Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia. Taylor was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm, and the appeal was focused on whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeal, comprising Busuttil JA, The Hon. Justice Gray and The Hon. Justice Kourakis, heard the appeal. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, warranting a reduction or suspension of the sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the particular circumstances of the case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal analysed the trial judge's sentencing remarks and the applicable legal principles. The judges concluded that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. They found that the trial judge had not adequately taken into account the principles of proportionality and deterrence, and had instead placed undue emphasis on the defendant's criminal history. The court held that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender, and thus warranted a reduction or suspension. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed on 18 May 2000 was suspended forthwith.

The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for trial judges to carefully consider all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence. The judges emphasised that a manifestly excessive sentence could be corrected through the appellate process, ensuring that justice is served in individual cases. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed on 18 May 2000 was suspended forthwith.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Sentence imposed on 18 May 2000 suspended forthwith.

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 Taylor [2000] QCA 311
PARTIES:	R v TAYLOR, Jason Wade (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 139 of 2000 DC No 323 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2000
JUDGES:	Davies and Thomas JJA, Mullins J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Sentence imposed on 18 May 2000 suspended forthwith.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – application for leave to appeal against sentence - conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997 (Qld) Penalties and Sentences 1992 (Qld), s 9(4) R v Anlezark [1999] QCA 380, CA No 207 of 1999, 9 September 1999, discussed R v Bean [1999] QCA 359, CA No 95 of 1999, 26 August 1999, considered R v Ward CA No 245 of 1998, 18 September 1998, discussed
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant/appellant L J Clare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Herdlaw for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent