R v Tom

Case [2018] QCA 218


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tom [2018] QCA 218

PARTIES:

R
v
TOM, Kennedy William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 230 of 2017
DC No 471 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 6 September 2017 (Harrison DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2018

JUDGES:

Philippides JA and Boddice and Bond JJ

ORDERS:

The orders of the Court are that:

1.    The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.    The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning bodily harm, common assault, and two counts of wilful and unlawful damage to a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of 5 years imprisonment on the most serious offence with all terms of imprisonment on the other offences to be served concurrently – where the applicant sought leave to appeal from his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to take account of “extra-curial” punishment in the form of injuries sustained by the applicant in the course of offending – whether the learned sentencing judge sentenced on the basis of a misapprehension of the mechanism by which the complainant had broken her leg in the course of the applicant’s offending – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in proceeding on assumptions concerning the applicant’s alcohol use and its connection with his offending – whether, pursuant to s 668E(3) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), some other sentence is warranted in law and should have been passed

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(3)

Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37, applied
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, applied
R v Brand[2006] QCA 525, applied
R v Bowditch[2014] QCA 157, applied
R v Bryan; ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, applied
R v Hannigan [2009] 2 Qd R 331; [2009] QCA 40, cited
R v HBA[2010] QCA 306, cited

COUNSEL:

J Crawford for the applicant (pro bono)
S Cupina for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. PHILIPPIDES JA:  I agree with the orders proposed by Bond J for the reasons given by his Honour.

  2. BODDICE J:  I agree with Bond J.

  3. BOND J:  On 6 September 2017, the applicant was convicted in the District Court on his own plea of guilty of five offences committed by him on 9 October 2016, for which he was sentenced as follows:

    (a)Grievous bodily harm to Louise Clare Hesketh: 5 years imprisonment;

    (b)Assault occasioning bodily harm to Brandon James Steffensen: 2½…

Continue reading R v Tom

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tom [2018] QCA 218
Case
[2018] QCA 218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tom involved an appeal against a sentence imposed following the applicant's guilty plea to several charges, including grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning bodily harm, common assault, and wilful and unlawful damage to a motor vehicle. The applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of five years imprisonment, with concurrent terms for the other offences. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge erred in not considering the extra-curial punishment the applicant received, whether there was a misapprehension about the mechanism of the complainant's injury, and whether the sentencing judge incorrectly assumed the connection between alcohol use and the offending.

The court considered these issues, examining the sentencing judge's handling of the extra-curial punishment, the accuracy of the injury mechanism, and the assumptions about alcohol use. It was determined that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the extra-curial punishment and had some misapprehensions regarding the injury mechanism and alcohol use. However, despite these errors, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, though leave to appeal was granted.

In light of the findings, the court ruled that the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. The court did not consider the sentence to be so excessive or inadequate as to warrant a different sentence. The court maintained that while there were errors in the sentencing process, they did not materially affect the overall sentence imposed. The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are that:

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

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.