R v Townshend - [2021] QCA 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Townshend [2021] QCA 106

PARTIES:

R
v
TOWNSHEND, Craig Aland
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 131 of 2020
DC No 1139 of 2020
DC No 2215 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 June 2020 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm to a public officer with intent to prevent him from acting under lawful authority – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years, with a mandatory service of 80 per cent before becoming eligible for parole – where the applicant submitted that having regard to his guilty plea, comparable cases, substantially irrelevant criminal history, employment history and prospects and remorse expressed in a letter to the Court the head sentence for 10 years imprisonment is manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 9(2), s 9(2A), s 9(3)

R v Anderson[2014] QCA 134, considered
R v Crossman [2011] 2 Qd R 435; [2011] QCA 126, cited
R v Kolb[2007] QCA 180, cited
R v Mulholland[2001] QCA 480, considered
R v Nielsen[2006] QCA 2, cited
R v Saebar[2008] QCA 407, distinguished
R v Tapara[2010] QCA 320, cited
R v Treptow[1995] QCA 582, distinguished

COUNSEL:

S Robb for the applicant
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count on indictment of doing grievous bodily harm to a public officer with intent to prevent him from acting under lawful authority. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life. He also pleaded guilty to a summary charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle[1] and another summary charge of driving with a drug in his blood.[2] Clare DCJ sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 10 years for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm and to concurrent sentences of 15 months and three months imprisonment respectively for the summary offences. The sentence of 10 years had the mandatory consequence that the applicant would have to serve 80 per cent of that sentence before becoming eligible for parole.
[1]Section 408A(1)(a) of the Code.
[2]Section 79(2AA)(a) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995; for the purposes of this proceeding this offence can be ignored. It was committed over a month before the indictable offence.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that Clare DCJ erred in the exercise of her…

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 Townshend

Details

AGLC: R v Townshend [2021] QCA 106
Case: [2021] QCA 106
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Townshend involves the applicant, who pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm to a public officer with the intent to prevent them from acting under lawful authority. The applicant was sentenced to a 10-year imprisonment term, with a mandatory service of 80% before becoming eligible for parole. The primary issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the applicant's guilty plea, relevant comparable cases, their substantially irrelevant criminal history, employment history and prospects, and the remorse expressed in a letter to the court.

The applicant argued that the 10-year imprisonment term was manifestly excessive, given the mitigating factors presented. The court was required to examine the severity of the offence and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the factors put forward by the applicant. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and if there were any grounds for interference with the sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court took into consideration the severity of the offence, the applicant's guilty plea, and the mitigating factors presented. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances, and there were no grounds for interference with the sentence. As a result, the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is refused.

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 Townshend [2021] QCA 106
PARTIES:	R v TOWNSHEND, Craig Aland (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 131 of 2020 DC No 1139 of 2020 DC No 2215 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 June 2020 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 February 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and McMurdo JJA
ORDER:	Leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of doing grievous bodily harm to a public officer with intent to prevent him from acting under lawful authority – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years, with a mandatory service of 80 per cent before becoming eligible for parole – where the applicant submitted that having regard to his guilty plea, comparable cases, substantially irrelevant criminal history, employment history and prospects and remorse expressed in a letter to the Court the head sentence for 10 years imprisonment is manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 9(2), s 9(2A), s 9(3) R v Anderson[2014] QCA 134, considered R v Crossman [2011] 2 Qd R 435; [2011] QCA 126, cited R v Kolb[2007] QCA 180, cited R v Mulholland[2001] QCA 480, considered R v Nielsen[2006] QCA 2, cited R v Saebar[2008] QCA 407, distinguished R v Tapara[2010] QCA 320, cited R v Treptow[1995] QCA 582, distinguished
COUNSEL:	S Robb for the applicant D Nardone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent