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 2017DIVISION:
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, citedCOUNSEL:
J Crawford for the applicant (pro bono)
S Cupina for the respondentSOLICITORS:
No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Bond J for the reasons given by his Honour.
BODDICE J: I agree with Bond J.
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
- AGLC
- R v Tom [2018] QCA 218
- Case
- [2018] QCA 218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.